Skip to main content

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






@wiobyrne If you change the date/time linked URLs from to
They'll link, instead of to the standalone versions which might be more appropriate for syndication link usage, to the original document on the web and auto-scroll to the location of the annotation. This might give you a tiny bit more of the UI functionality you're looking for.


@mrkrndvs I found a solid example of highlighting and annotation using my own website in conjunction with @pressfwd and @hypothes_is on a great @audreywatters piece. It's closer to some of the UI I'd like to have, though the CSS still needs work.


@mrkrndvs I'm curious if you manually cut & paste your replies for others' sites (who may not support webmention or even pingback/trackback) into their old-school comments sections?

I often worry that without that, or without replying to versions on Twitter if they syndicated, they won't see my response via pingback/trackback or other means. Instead my reply sits all alone on my site and they don't have the benefit of seeing it at all unless they come across it organically otherwise.

Generally when I manually cut and paste replies, I'll often use the comment's "website" field to include the permalink for my comment and then I'll take the permalink for my comment and add it to my syndication links since I've manually syndicated it.

Sometimes I notice that including multiple links in a reply can also run afoul of spam filters.

One of my favorite set of machinations occurred recently when I wrote this reply to Jon Udell:

Jon came back to his original post and appended his own comment to document my comment in the most circuitous of manners which included using his annotation tool

Interestingly we both used WordPress,, and Twitter to carry on the conversation. I was quite impressed that he took the time to circle back around and document my end of the conversation since he must have missed my pingback (he doesn't have webmentions) and my manual cut & paste, but did manage to see the notification on Twitter.

It all just goes to show that you've got to keep your eye on the tech that you and everyone else is using until it's broadly and evenly distributed. One day perhaps...

An interesting tool for annotating videos.


@audreywatters @mtechman @hypervisible @onewheeljoe Even with the script blocking @hypothes_is it is still possible to annotate Fortunately, though public annotations appear in the Chrome extension as existing, they don't physically appear on the site itself and need to be searched for manually to be found. I was able to do this with only just a few minutes of work, and could probably hack something more significant with some time/effort. should really try to do a better job of preventing abuse in these types of situations so writers needn't worry about providing abusers the ability to use a writer's own platform to harass them. Perhaps borrowing the NIPSA concept from Flickr for flagged annotations and/or accounts? (NIPSA is an acronym for "Not In Public Site Areas", and an admin feature of Flickr that allows their support staff to mark an account such that posts from it will not be shown in search results and other similar public views of posts.)


(Consider Adding Web Annotations to WordPress) – WordPress Trac

Mostly to provide some additional resources to the conversation I'll add the following:

Web Annotation Working Group's [ three recommendations and two additional notes]

Prior to the WPTavern post which motivated the conversation, there was a [ post written by Dan Whaley of] who worked extensively within the group. This post has some interesting overview, but those interested in a fully implemented annotation platform (presumably using many of the pieces of the proposed standard) should take a quick look at [], what it is and what it allows. Their front page has a pretty useful video introduction.

Keep in mind that some of the standard is geared specifically toward browsers and browser vendors, though WordPress could certainly implement some of the pieces from the CMS side.


@realkimhansen @signlfm If you hadn't been aware, this came out earlier in the week and may be of overlapping interest:
Three recommendations to enable Annotations on the Web | W3C News
Their method of breaking down the problem and their vocabulary may be particularly useful; the overlay onto audio may be another problem altogether...

I also thought this post (with code) by Aaron Parecki, while a relatively simple concept, was exceptionally cool.


Certainly an interesting and different way to do #annotation of older sources for the web. #IndieWeb

1 min read

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="">#Facebook</a> <a href="">@_Four_Horsemen</a>  ...the individual is no longer a person, it’s a commodity: <a href=""></a></p>&mdash; Blake B Wright (@WrightBlakeb) <a href="">October 1, 2015</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//" charset="utf-8"></script>


I'm wondering if the @NYTimes used the Annotation Summit to make @Hypothes_is unusable on its site?


Genetic variability in a frozen batch of MCF-7 cells invisible in routine authentication

Common recommendations for cell line authentication, annotation and quality control fall short addressing genetic heterogeneity. Within the Human Toxome Project, we demonstrate that there can be marked cellular and phenotypic heterogeneity in a single batch of the human breast adenocarcinoma cell line MCF-7 obtained directly from a cell bank that are invisible with the usual cell authentication by short tandem repeat (STR) markers. STR profiling just fulfills the purpose of authentication testing, which is to detect significant cross-contamination and cell line misidentification. Heterogeneity needs to be examined using additional methods. This heterogeneity can have serious consequences for reproducibility of experiments as shown by morphology, estrogenic growth dose-response, whole genome gene expression and untargeted mass-spectroscopy metabolomics for MCF-7 cells. Using Comparative Genomic Hybridization (CGH), differences were traced back to genetic heterogeneity already in the cells from the original frozen vials from the same ATCC lot, however, STR markers did not differ from ATCC reference for any sample. These findings underscore the need for additional quality assurance in Good Cell Culture Practice and cell characterization, especially using other methods such as CGH to reveal possible genomic heterogeneity and genetic drifts within cell lines.



Replied to a post on :

UX Suggestion · Issue #3 · kshaffer/hypothesis_aggregator

Towards the end of using this plugin as part of an online "notebook" or commonplace book, it would be nice to have finer control over the listings of the annotations.

As an example, look at:
The original post was a "bookmark" to an article which was then annotated, solely by me. When embedding the annotations (in this case the shortcode included one author and one specific tag), it becomes overly redundant to repeatedly include that the annotations were by me, that they're from the same article, and including the picture multiple times. As this is likely a frequent use case for such a plug in, perhaps when the same annotator is repeated all the annotations could come under one heading and similarly if it's the same article, those could be concatenated along with just one photo as well.

Suggested output:
Annotations by AUTHOR1:
- annotation 1 from PAGE1
- highlight 2 from PAGE1
- highlight 3 from PAGE1
- annotation to go with highlight 3 from PAGE1

Annotations by AUTHOR1:
- annotation 1 from PAGE2

Annotations by AUTHOR2:
- annotation 2 from PAGE2
- annotation 3 from PAGE2

This type of logic isn't too difficult given the current configuration though it may require some thought for the pending changes to add and/or functionality for multiple authors and multiple tags.

One particular hurdle may be cases where the order of annotations could potentially tell a "story" and even more so when there are multiple authors providing multiple annotations (for example when using this in a classroom setting versus a single-author notebook.)

Providing a visual indicator like # which includes a wrapped permalink URL for the particular article could allow the user to also quickly jump to that page and see the broader flow of annotations on a single page, especially in a classroom type setting where dozens of students may have made hundreds of annotations which may provide a slightly better contextual UI experience, while still allowing the (shortcoded) web page to include all of the annotations for historical purposes.


Replied to a post on :

Potential future features · Issue #2 · kshaffer/hypothesis_aggregator

This plugin is spectacular by the way... Here are some thoughts on future development:

It would be great if the displayed text output from the shortcode included a permalink to the original annotation on Hypothesis. As a UI suggestion, perhaps you could place it after the title of the annotated page thusly:
URL WRAPPED TITLE | &lt; a href="permalinkhere">#&lt;/a>

Being able to circumscribe dates for displayed annotations could be useful, particularly in cases where one wants to highlight only a handful of annotations from a particular user with a particular tag but specific ones within certain time parameters. Additionally pages with embeds could, over time, require importing huge numbers of annotations which may not be ideal, or the context may change with significant future annotations that aren't relevant to what could be a static post that's trying to highlight just a few particular annotations. Time parameters could also prevent future possible spam on unwatched embeds with only "tag" parameters that could be targeted by bad actors.