6 ms·

Changes to the Blog

192 points by anu_gupta 14y ago

jlgaddis 14y ago
> Over the next couple of days, I will transition existing subscribers off of Feedburner, but since some of you are subscribed directly to a Feedburner URL, [...] Anybody happen to know how one might "transition existing subscribers off of Feedburner"? I have a decent amount of subscribers via Feedburner but I would also like to cease using it (the writing is on the wall) and transition existing subscribers off but, obviously, RSS readers are tied to my Feedburner URL instead of the "direct" URL on my blog.
- webwanderings 14y ago
  I believe this would be a manual process where you'd ask your subscribers to subscribe again on a different platform.
- modernerd 14y ago
  I believe the only way of doing it is to delete the FeedBurner feed. Google redirects requests for your FB feed to the source for 15 days, then stops redirecting and shows a message with a link to the source feed for 15 days, then returns a 404: http://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79597?hl=en http://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79597?hl=en This should give keen subscribers the chance to switch over, although you will likely lose some in the transition. If you have FeedBurner's email subscription option turned on, you'll also need to migrate those users to MailChimp or FeedBlitz or similar manually. (You can export the list from the FB control panel.)
- davidjohnstone 14y ago
  In theory, if you change the URL in the feed to point to the new location and return the XML with a 301 (Moved Permanently) response code, the feed reader will update its record to the new location. However, Feedburner doesn't appear to allow a user to control that, so I believe all that can be done is to put up a "We're moving" blog post and have readers manually add the new blog. (Yay for vendor lock-in...)
- epc 14y ago
  Feedburner has (had) an option to CNAME your own domain name to a google domain and to use that as the feed URL. If you did that then all you need todo is change where the CNAME points to.
rkudeshi 14y ago
I'm glad to see Schneier leading by example in removing/hiding those pervasive share buttons. (To enable something similar for every site you go to, check out the Ghostery extension for Firefox/Chrome.)
- jrabone 14y ago
  Or if you use AdBlock, give Fan boy's Social Annoyances filter list a go.
- ge0rg 14y ago
  I am surprised he did not do that from the very beginning... I am reading his monthly newsletter and did not look at the blog too often, but on my own installations I always asked myself, how much of my users privacy I want to give up for some gain I might have (usually not much)
  - niggler 14y ago
    Many readers say they dislike seeing it on other pages, but as the author said: I especially like them because I can obsessively watch the totals see how my writings are spreading out across the Internet. It's kinda cool to watch the realtime google analytics views during a spike
- nikcub 14y ago
  > leading by example He is way behind here, and we could have used his advocacy much earlier. There have been alternate buttons, browser plugins and a movement to include no third-party scripts on the web for years. I switched techrunch.com to the two-click solution in 2008. It didn't last long because we weren't successful in arguing why you don't want scripts from third-parties loading automatically. I sure could have used a bit of backup at that time.
  - mnutt 14y ago
    If you had to compromise, what about enabling the buttons on hover? You'd still have people accidentally enabling them, but fewer than if they were auto-enabled.
minimaxir 14y ago
Why doesn't he implement his own social sharing buttons if he's worried about having visitors send data to third parties unwillingly? I've done that on my own blog and it works well (using FontAwesome to identify services). Saves on loading time too.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Probably less effort to just use SocialSharePrivacy. I think the clicking twice thing is actually kind of nice anyway. Makes me as a user more aware of what is being done to be considerate of my privacy.
- streptomycin 14y ago
  Is it as easy for a non-webdev as this https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy If you have a better solution, you should publicize it.
  - minimaxir 14y ago
    Define "easy for a non-webdev," because implementing a jQuery plugin isn't something I could tell my friends to do on their normal Wordpress blog. My solution isn't "better" (nor easier to implement, due to how implemented social buttons handle social counts) because for this purpose because I primarily implemented my own buttons for performance/aesthetic reasons.
    - streptomycin 14y ago
      By "implementing a jQuery plugin" you mean "copy and pasting a few lines of code, like it says in the instructions"? I'm sure you can appreciate that some people have the skill to do that, but not the skill to come up with a new solution from scratch. Also, I was genuine above when I said that, if you have a better solution, you should publicize it. Any reason why your method can't be done just as easily, if the code was out there?
    - pronoiac 14y ago
      Oh! I have a suggestion for Wordpress users: Try WPSocialite.[1] I put a slightly modified version at mightygodking.com. I should send that mod upstream... [1] http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wpsocialite/ http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wpsocialite/
modernerd 14y ago
Is there anything wrong with linking to the share pages directly to avoid the JavaScript buttons altogether? e.g. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fex... Twitter: https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=My+tweet+http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=My+tweet+http%3A%2F%2F... Google+: https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://example.com http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http:...
- JoshTriplett 14y ago
  Technically, according to the ToS of Facebook and Twitter at least, you can't use their share button icons unless you use their unmodified sharing script code. In practice, nobody cares, and lots of sites link directly to those share links.
  - spdy 14y ago
    This got some media attention in germany when heise.de first put this out. Facebook immediately threatend them to terminate their app-id / violating tos etc. But later on they backpaddled and made an offical statement that you are allowed to use an modified like button that does not resemble the orginal like button (icon).
- bsimpson 14y ago
  I worked at an ad company that was very keen on social sharing. Having played with both the bookmarklet-style links you've cited as well as the official share buttons, I've found the official buttons are better supported. I feel like one day, Facebook is just going to deprecate sharer.php and make everyone use the Like button. Tracking aside, the Like button has a much better UX, whereas sharer.php has been barely maintained in spite of all the changes to Facebook proper in the last few years. I don't think you can even suggest a link title anymore. Anecdotally, users seem to trust native button more. If it looks like you made your own PNG and linked it to Facebook, they can't trust that you aren't going to try to do something shady to their Facebook account (or open a popup). If you use Facebook's button, it's a familiar experience without providing the publisher's site the opportunity to play man-in-the-middle. User perception matters. Facebook's button seems to be perceived as more user-friendly than the unknown button on someone else's site, even if the unfamiliar button was designed to be less hostile than Like.
Foomandoonian 14y ago
[Wondering aloud] Would a better approach be to activate the sharing icons on mouseover? Sure, users would do this accidentally, but those concerned about privacy could learn to avoid those areas of blogs. Those who don't care (or pay attention) would get a one-click experience. Touch users woud presumably still have to tap twice.
- thomasz 14y ago
  If I remember correctly they went the way they did to alleviate the threat of trademark litigation.
mhartl 14y ago
How do you "transition existing subscribers off of FeedBurner"? I'd definitely think about doing this, but I don't know how.
- nikcub 14y ago
  I recently read up on this because I want to move my subs off. Feedburner has support for redirects and extracting email subscribers, although I still wish there was a tool that would automate a few of the steps. See this post, which is the best I have found on the topic: http://devilsworkshop.org/tips/how-to-leave-feedburner-without-loosing-your-subscribers/1402/ http://devilsworkshop.org/tips/how-to-leave-feedburner-witho...
benatkin 14y ago
This reminds me that I need http://disconnect.me/ http://disconnect.me/ to add support for Disqus.
iuguy 14y ago
I was hoping the changes would include a commitment to him keeping to discussing things he knows about, rather than having the expert's problem of talking about things outside his domain knowledge and being considered an expert for it regardless.
- febeling 14y ago
  Which pieces by Schneier were not well-informed, or in which ones was he talking about something outside of his domain?
  - iuguy 14y ago
    It's surprisingly common. Here's[1] the most recent example of Schneier talking out of his domain with the potential to cause damage. The problem is that Schneier is a pundit, not a security expert. He has a good knowledge of cryptography but as a media pundit he's often asked questions outside of his domain and on responding or commenting he's referred to in the media as an expert. This is precisely what happened with his views on Airport Security. He was expressing views as an expert when he was known for cryptography and had no domain experience in airport security. Over time he's clearly researched it and had more interest in it, but his earlier stuff shows his lack of domain knowledge, yet because of his media presence he's automatically deemed an expert, and this is dangerous. In the most recent example of security awareness training, I would bet £5 (to be donated to the Open Rights Group, the UK equivalent of the EFF) versus the equivalent in dollars to be donated to the EFF that Schneier never once in his lifetime has been involved in implementing a security awareness training programme. Yet his commentary on this marks him as an expert in the field as far as the media is concerned, and such views coming from 'an expert' may impact the security awareness programmes of many people trying to improve security in their own organisations worldwide. There's strong and well put opposition to this from Dave Kennedy[2] and Andy Ellis[3], the latter of which is Akamai's CSO, and someone who actually practices security on a day to day basis. Just to be clear, I am generally critical of Schneier and I think it would be unfair not to state this. While I'm not a cryptography expert I recognise the work he's done in that field, however where his points have crossed over into my domain knowledge I've found his comments often show a lack of experience for someone deemed an expert by default. I don't blame him for this, but I do believe that he benefits from it and does nothing to counter the impression (that he is an expert in areas he clearly isn't). [1] - http://www.schneier.com/essay-419.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-419.html [2] - https://www.trustedsec.com/march-2013/the-debate-on-security-education-and-awareness/ https://www.trustedsec.com/march-2013/the-debate-on-security... [3] - http://www.csoandy.com/files/why_bother_with_awareness.html http://www.csoandy.com/files/why_bother_with_awareness.html
trinita 14y ago
This is a very interesting approach, I really like it. I use Adblock and DuckDuckGo but really like making these changes for my blog visitors as well.

192 points by anu_gupta 14y ago

> Over the next couple of days, I will transition existing subscribers off of Feedburner, but since some of you are subscribed directly to a Feedburner URL, [...] Anybody happen to know how one might "transition existing subscribers off of Feedburner"? I have a decent amount of subscribers via Feedburner but I would also like to cease using it (the writing is on the wall) and transition existing subscribers off but, obviously, RSS readers are tied to my Feedburner URL instead of the "direct" URL on my blog.

webwanderings 14y ago
I believe this would be a manual process where you'd ask your subscribers to subscribe again on a different platform.
modernerd 14y ago
I believe the only way of doing it is to delete the FeedBurner feed. Google redirects requests for your FB feed to the source for 15 days, then stops redirecting and shows a message with a link to the source feed for 15 days, then returns a 404: http://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79597?hl=en http://support.google.com/feedburner/answer/79597?hl=en This should give keen subscribers the chance to switch over, although you will likely lose some in the transition. If you have FeedBurner's email subscription option turned on, you'll also need to migrate those users to MailChimp or FeedBlitz or similar manually. (You can export the list from the FB control panel.)
davidjohnstone 14y ago
In theory, if you change the URL in the feed to point to the new location and return the XML with a 301 (Moved Permanently) response code, the feed reader will update its record to the new location. However, Feedburner doesn't appear to allow a user to control that, so I believe all that can be done is to put up a "We're moving" blog post and have readers manually add the new blog. (Yay for vendor lock-in...)
epc 14y ago
Feedburner has (had) an option to CNAME your own domain name to a google domain and to use that as the feed URL. If you did that then all you need todo is change where the CNAME points to.

rkudeshi 14y ago

I'm glad to see Schneier leading by example in removing/hiding those pervasive share buttons. (To enable something similar for every site you go to, check out the Ghostery extension for Firefox/Chrome.)

jrabone 14y ago
Or if you use AdBlock, give Fan boy's Social Annoyances filter list a go.
ge0rg 14y ago
I am surprised he did not do that from the very beginning... I am reading his monthly newsletter and did not look at the blog too often, but on my own installations I always asked myself, how much of my users privacy I want to give up for some gain I might have (usually not much)
- niggler 14y ago
  Many readers say they dislike seeing it on other pages, but as the author said: I especially like them because I can obsessively watch the totals see how my writings are spreading out across the Internet. It's kinda cool to watch the realtime google analytics views during a spike
nikcub 14y ago
> leading by example He is way behind here, and we could have used his advocacy much earlier. There have been alternate buttons, browser plugins and a movement to include no third-party scripts on the web for years. I switched techrunch.com to the two-click solution in 2008. It didn't last long because we weren't successful in arguing why you don't want scripts from third-parties loading automatically. I sure could have used a bit of backup at that time.
- mnutt 14y ago
  If you had to compromise, what about enabling the buttons on hover? You'd still have people accidentally enabling them, but fewer than if they were auto-enabled.

minimaxir 14y ago

Why doesn't he implement his own social sharing buttons if he's worried about having visitors send data to third parties unwillingly? I've done that on my own blog and it works well (using FontAwesome to identify services). Saves on loading time too.

jlgreco 14y ago
Probably less effort to just use SocialSharePrivacy. I think the clicking twice thing is actually kind of nice anyway. Makes me as a user more aware of what is being done to be considerate of my privacy.
streptomycin 14y ago
Is it as easy for a non-webdev as this https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy https://github.com/panzi/SocialSharePrivacy If you have a better solution, you should publicize it.
- minimaxir 14y ago
  Define "easy for a non-webdev," because implementing a jQuery plugin isn't something I could tell my friends to do on their normal Wordpress blog. My solution isn't "better" (nor easier to implement, due to how implemented social buttons handle social counts) because for this purpose because I primarily implemented my own buttons for performance/aesthetic reasons.
  - streptomycin 14y ago
    By "implementing a jQuery plugin" you mean "copy and pasting a few lines of code, like it says in the instructions"? I'm sure you can appreciate that some people have the skill to do that, but not the skill to come up with a new solution from scratch. Also, I was genuine above when I said that, if you have a better solution, you should publicize it. Any reason why your method can't be done just as easily, if the code was out there?
  - pronoiac 14y ago
    Oh! I have a suggestion for Wordpress users: Try WPSocialite.[1] I put a slightly modified version at mightygodking.com. I should send that mod upstream... [1] http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wpsocialite/ http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wpsocialite/

modernerd 14y ago

Is there anything wrong with linking to the share pages directly to avoid the JavaScript buttons altogether? e.g. Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fex... Twitter: https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=My+tweet+http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=My+tweet+http%3A%2F%2F... Google+: https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com https://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fexample.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://example.com http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http:...

JoshTriplett 14y ago
Technically, according to the ToS of Facebook and Twitter at least, you can't use their share button icons unless you use their unmodified sharing script code. In practice, nobody cares, and lots of sites link directly to those share links.
- spdy 14y ago
  This got some media attention in germany when heise.de first put this out. Facebook immediately threatend them to terminate their app-id / violating tos etc. But later on they backpaddled and made an offical statement that you are allowed to use an modified like button that does not resemble the orginal like button (icon).
bsimpson 14y ago
I worked at an ad company that was very keen on social sharing. Having played with both the bookmarklet-style links you've cited as well as the official share buttons, I've found the official buttons are better supported. I feel like one day, Facebook is just going to deprecate sharer.php and make everyone use the Like button. Tracking aside, the Like button has a much better UX, whereas sharer.php has been barely maintained in spite of all the changes to Facebook proper in the last few years. I don't think you can even suggest a link title anymore. Anecdotally, users seem to trust native button more. If it looks like you made your own PNG and linked it to Facebook, they can't trust that you aren't going to try to do something shady to their Facebook account (or open a popup). If you use Facebook's button, it's a familiar experience without providing the publisher's site the opportunity to play man-in-the-middle. User perception matters. Facebook's button seems to be perceived as more user-friendly than the unknown button on someone else's site, even if the unfamiliar button was designed to be less hostile than Like.

Foomandoonian 14y ago

[Wondering aloud] Would a better approach be to activate the sharing icons on mouseover? Sure, users would do this accidentally, but those concerned about privacy could learn to avoid those areas of blogs. Those who don't care (or pay attention) would get a one-click experience. Touch users woud presumably still have to tap twice.

thomasz 14y ago
If I remember correctly they went the way they did to alleviate the threat of trademark litigation.

mhartl 14y ago

How do you "transition existing subscribers off of FeedBurner"? I'd definitely think about doing this, but I don't know how.

nikcub 14y ago
I recently read up on this because I want to move my subs off. Feedburner has support for redirects and extracting email subscribers, although I still wish there was a tool that would automate a few of the steps. See this post, which is the best I have found on the topic: http://devilsworkshop.org/tips/how-to-leave-feedburner-without-loosing-your-subscribers/1402/ http://devilsworkshop.org/tips/how-to-leave-feedburner-witho...

benatkin 14y ago

This reminds me that I need http://disconnect.me/ http://disconnect.me/ to add support for Disqus.

iuguy 14y ago

I was hoping the changes would include a commitment to him keeping to discussing things he knows about, rather than having the expert's problem of talking about things outside his domain knowledge and being considered an expert for it regardless.

febeling 14y ago
Which pieces by Schneier were not well-informed, or in which ones was he talking about something outside of his domain?
- iuguy 14y ago
  It's surprisingly common. Here's[1] the most recent example of Schneier talking out of his domain with the potential to cause damage. The problem is that Schneier is a pundit, not a security expert. He has a good knowledge of cryptography but as a media pundit he's often asked questions outside of his domain and on responding or commenting he's referred to in the media as an expert. This is precisely what happened with his views on Airport Security. He was expressing views as an expert when he was known for cryptography and had no domain experience in airport security. Over time he's clearly researched it and had more interest in it, but his earlier stuff shows his lack of domain knowledge, yet because of his media presence he's automatically deemed an expert, and this is dangerous. In the most recent example of security awareness training, I would bet £5 (to be donated to the Open Rights Group, the UK equivalent of the EFF) versus the equivalent in dollars to be donated to the EFF that Schneier never once in his lifetime has been involved in implementing a security awareness training programme. Yet his commentary on this marks him as an expert in the field as far as the media is concerned, and such views coming from 'an expert' may impact the security awareness programmes of many people trying to improve security in their own organisations worldwide. There's strong and well put opposition to this from Dave Kennedy[2] and Andy Ellis[3], the latter of which is Akamai's CSO, and someone who actually practices security on a day to day basis. Just to be clear, I am generally critical of Schneier and I think it would be unfair not to state this. While I'm not a cryptography expert I recognise the work he's done in that field, however where his points have crossed over into my domain knowledge I've found his comments often show a lack of experience for someone deemed an expert by default. I don't blame him for this, but I do believe that he benefits from it and does nothing to counter the impression (that he is an expert in areas he clearly isn't). [1] - http://www.schneier.com/essay-419.html http://www.schneier.com/essay-419.html [2] - https://www.trustedsec.com/march-2013/the-debate-on-security-education-and-awareness/ https://www.trustedsec.com/march-2013/the-debate-on-security... [3] - http://www.csoandy.com/files/why_bother_with_awareness.html http://www.csoandy.com/files/why_bother_with_awareness.html

trinita 14y ago

This is a very interesting approach, I really like it. I use Adblock and DuckDuckGo but really like making these changes for my blog visitors as well.