Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Blogs | Writers | Paid | My Orble | Login

Webitz - Checking out the Web from an amateur's point of view

Webitz - October 2009

FTC's new rules

October 20th 2009 18:59
I'm assuming here in New Zealand the new FTC rules about declaring when you're being paid to promote an item in your blog don't apply. Unless suddenly everything the US does applies everywhere else...!

One Virginia Smith gave a good overview of the situation in a recent email that I was sent - you can find a web version of it here.

Smith focuses mostly on books and book reviews, but obviously the rules could apply to any sort of product, service and so on, like acne treatment.

Here's her summary of the rules:

* If you received a free copy of a book in return for a promise to post a blurb or review, you should include a simple statement to that effect.
* If you have been paid to write the review, you need to disclose that fact clearly. (And while you’re at it, can you let me know who’s paying you, so I can get on the list?)
* Though this situation isn’t likely to come up in a book review, the FTC ruling mandates a clear statement when results aren’t typical. Most of the onus is placed on the company who manufactures the product, not the reviewer. However, you may want to get legal advice before making a claim such as, “I read this diet book and lost 50 pounds in one week.”
* I’ve seen indications in the FTC’s ruling that companies who provide free products to reviewers will now be required to monitor those reviews. So be aware that the publisher or publicist who sent you the free book will be reading your review. (They’ll probably be looking for things like atypical results, mentioned in the previous point.)
* If you paid for the book you’re reviewing, you are under no constraints at all.


She notes that you should still read the rules themselves, if you really want to be sure, but otherwise, most ordinary every day bloggers will be okay.


58
Vote
   


Chatting a little

October 19th 2009 07:56
Someone on Twitter pointed me towards an interesting blog post by David Mullen, in which the latter writes about five ways in which Twitter makes you smarter.

One of these was that it makes you be concise - in fact there's a certain delight in getting to exactly 140 characters in a tweet. Mullen actually says Twitter will make you a better writer. Well, I guess that's possible considering that having the ability to refine your thoughts down to the basics has a certain value. It's not necessarily a sign of good writing, though, in my opinion. The good use of words, long or short, is a better criterion.

I appreciated more Mullen's first two points which are that Twitter gives you access to different points of view, and, the people you follow point you to great resources you wouldn’t find otherwise.. Certainly this latter is true (it pointed me to Dave Mullen for starters), and I've often found information I would never have come across otherwise.

Of course, as Mullen points out, you have to follow people who provide interesting tweets in the first place.

Talking more of Twitter's disadvantages however, we find that the fifth point (the one about being concise) can also work against you. I jotted a short tweet to someone the other day after we'd both been to the same seminar. So boiled up was he about what had gone on in the question time at the seminar that I received five tweets in reply.

It's at times like that, that that kind of restriction is just a frustration (hey, three 'thats' in a row!). At such times it's perhaps better to turn to chat, a form of communication those of us in what is now generally known as 'social media' tend to forget still exists and still gets used by a great many people. In fact, is by far the preferred method of communication for many.

I was reminded about chat again because I came across a link to live chat software, something that presumably means exactly what it says - though one would suspect that chat has to be 'live' to exist in the first place. Otherwise it's no different to email or Facebook, in the sense that both of those don't tend in their normal functions to allow conversation as chat does.

Facebook has its own chat section of course, but I've found in using it, that people are generally distracted by the other things they're doing on Facebook, and it's not particularly speedy. Gmail has a chat function too, and when I've occasionally used it, it's effective. The good thing about it is you don't have to log into yet another program to use it.

And the other great place for chat is on Skype, which has a great habit of breaking down in terms of actually speaking to someone. Skype Chat has come to the rescue more than a few times in my experience.
53
Vote
   


Scone and Sconce

October 14th 2009 08:29
Isn't it funny how some words survive that seem a little odd? Sconce is an example. It's a word used in relation to candles or lamps, and merely means a kind of holder. In fact if the examples on the Net are anything to go by candle sconces can mean a great variety of things of many varied designs. Check out the example in the picture, for instance.
bigso leaf wall sconce
It comes with the name Bigso Leaf Wall Sconce. Bigso is just as odd a word as sconce.

I always think 'sconce' is something to do with scones - those wonderful doughy things that are great with lashings of butter on them, and cheese mixed in them, or even dates (though dates come a good second to cheese in my opinion).

Of course there's a Wikipedia entry for Sconce - in fact there's three. Sconce can mean a fortification (from which presumably we get the word, ensconced - someone who's stuck inside their castle and won't come out no matter how much rubbish we throw at his walls). Or it can mean the light fitting we know so well. Or it can be something totally unrelated to those two: 'imposing a penalty in the form of a drink.' That meaning comes from an Oxford University habit of making people drink a tankard of ale (or some equivalent) for some breach of etiquette. How did we get to use the word in that way? I'm sure there's a connection, but I don't immediately see it.

As the Wikipedia entry on the light fitting says: The etymology of sconce is from the Latin absconsus, and the French esconce. It is a word of many meanings, mostly signifying a covering or protection, or, by extension, that which is covered or protected. Okay, that has some relevance to the fortress, and even to the light fitting, but the leap to sconcing is a bit out of left field. On the other hand, to scone someone is to hit them in some way - perhaps it started because someone literally threw a scone at someone else. Who knows how words get where they go?

30
Vote
   


More Posts
1 Posts
2 Posts
1 Posts
296 Posts dating from January 2007
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:

Mike Crowl's Blogs

23153 Vote(s)
257 Comment(s)
380 Post(s)
Moderated by Mike Crowl
Copyright © 2006 2007 2008 On Topic Media PTY LTD. All Rights Reserved. Design by Vimu.com.
On Topic Media ZPages: Sydney |  Melbourne |  Brisbane |  London |  Birmingham |  Leeds     [ Advertise ] [ Contact Us ] [ Privacy Policy ]