Tuesday, June 28, 2005

MIT Weblog Survey

Take the MIT Weblog Survey

And I gotta tell you, I've made better science in REA's craptacular methods class. This survey forced so many answers that I left half the weblog content section blank. So, here are the notes I took while I was doing it in order to vent my spleen:

1. Demographics: "some college" but no "some graduate work" option. This is not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination. I don't have a masters, but in a couple of years, barring departmental homocide, I'll have a Ph.D.

2. Demographics again: Heteronormative marital status options. This will always bug the shit out of me.

3. Blog content (they take your URL and come back with questiona about specific links on your blog): The options for how you found a particular link were in no way exhaustive. There wasn't even an "other" option -- the closest is "can't remember."

It asked me about my sidebar link to the Feminist Majority Foundation. I looked up Feminist Majority because I had heard about them offline. I knew the URL from hearing about them, typed it in, and presto! Yet there are no options for having heard about a site from somewhere other than the internet.

4. Chat/IM questions: I have no buddy list members who are family members or strictly business associates, yet the lowest option is "less than 10%" of my buddy list. I would think that "zero" would have some sort of special research value that the folks who constructed this piece of crap are utterly missing out on. I do not use IM to communicate with either group, dammit, and I have Reasons for it! This has Meaning! Arrrrgh!

5. Social Networks: Do not start with me about that ridiculous social networks section. So much annoyance at what they're trying to do here. I don't ask what people do with their lives when I meet them online because my online circles tend to revolve around things that aren't work. So, anyone I can identify an occupation for is someone I met IRL. If you're trying to prove that people still live real lives away from their computers, congrats. If you're trying to study the way we interact online using the standards for in-person interaction, you're gonna leave out a whole mess of people whose primary online interactions are recreational. And really, if some people get away from being obsessed with what people DO as a primary measure of who they ARE, even virtually, isn't that Interesting? Like, in the interest of Science?

In other news from the "shit bothers me more when I'm sick" front, I found out today that the hold on my record could have been resolved the day I first met with my advisor about this fucking mess. See, all we have to do is make a plan and write a letter to the DGS detailing it. Of course, now that I know this, my advisor is out of the country. Some folks just need to be CUT.

Finally, my mail program has decided to give me some of your comments and sort others to junk mail. There is no rhyme or reason to which comments are let through. Meanwhile, my spam filter seems to think that Viagra offers are somehow of vital importance (ha! Typo: impotence), and sends them all to my inbox accordingly. Genius technology. Gotta love it.


Blogger Jon said...

I got so sick of the damn Viagra junk mail that I actually added a rule to my junk mail filter that if "viagra" appears anywhere in the message, it gets sent to junk mail. Of course, if any of my legitimate friends ever email me about viagra, I will not recieve it, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.

10:26 AM  
Blogger Jon said...

Oh yeah, I took the survey too. Another annoying quirk: a) when it grabs links from your site, if you have a blogroll that ends up being most of the links it finds, and b) if you select "personal homepage" and not "weblog" to describe that link, it still asks you questions about it as if it were a blog.

10:43 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home