Ornen Blog

The first paragraph I read in this web site was true, admittedly so. All of us have encountered cases of spammy web sites. You just peek at the site, hoping there is something useful in there and you are dejected. But there are other web sites that aim at quality work and this site seems to belong in there. I agreed immediately that these were quality articles. Of course, the site does not have hundreds of articles. But I must mention ‘not yet’. It has quality content that is sure to attract even more readers in time to develop well.

There are several categories of articles to browse through. You could look into the articles under blogs category, or you could pick up a few tips from the real estate section. You could find yourself armed with nuggets of trivia in the education and games section as well. Take your time and see what you get.

Wordpress themes, or any website theme for that matter, help define the identity of a particular blog or website. For example, no-nonsense bloggers might prefer the default Kubrick theme while those who like metal music would prefer themes with darker shades. And then for fashionistas, there’s the World of Fashion theme.

As its name suggests, the theme is on the stylish side and uses very feminine colors. Shades of carnation, flesh and maroon are the dominant shades in this theme. Curvy shapes are also employed here.

But themes have more to offer than looks. Good themes also provide features such flexibility to enable others to modify it if they want to. Here are some of the features of the World of Fashion and their pros and cons.

Pros

For all the fashion-related colors and shapes used in this theme, the text used here is the plain, old Verdana. But it isn’t a bad thing, though. Instead, it helps a lot in improving the readability of the content.

Then, there’s the pre-included Google Adsense spaces. For those who do not have the time to tweak the theme in adding the Google Ads, it is already done for them including the colors and the use of rounded corners to complement the overall design. The only thing that needs to be changed is the publisher’s number.

Cons

Then there are the cons. Since the availability of Adsense spaces has already been mentioned, we’ll discuss it first here. Anyway, the ad space can be counterproductive too. Since they are packed into the topmost part of the blog, they tend to give the impression that the blog is all about the money and the ads. Aside from that, they push the content further down into the window that visitors have to scroll down just to get a view of the topmost post.

Meanwhile, the header also tends to dominate most of the page and it seems to attract the attention to itself rather than the content.

Finally, the blog could use a more visible link for RSS feeds to help attract users to subscribe to the blog.

To view a live demo of the theme, please check out here or you can download the theme here.

the first: friend of u

and the others:

articlers

article blog

the andyblog

Wikipedia is the center of the online encyclopedia universe. Millions of entries on every conceivable topic makes this website an authority source that many young students and adults turn to from all corners of the globe.

The widespread popularity of Wikipedia has made it an easy target for quite a bit of controversy and critique. Many academic institutions disapprove of any use of unverified Internet sources, including Wikipedia articles. Ironically, Wikipedia prides itself on the idea that its information is verifiable. Read more about Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

Wikipedia Basics

Founded in 2001, Wikipedia is a free content resource that anyone can submit information to according to certain submission rules. Articles are written and submitted by anyone interested in the topic being discussed.

Authenticity is supposedly ensured by the ability of others to edit previously submitted information and correct any errors. Grossly inappropriate or incorrect articles can be nominated for deletion. Wikipedia users are given a week to vote on the appropriate response to a deletion nomination.

These safeguards have been built into Wikipedia’s design as a way of preserving both its credibility and authenticity. While Wikipedia’s systems of checks and balances are not failsafe, they do eliminate quite a few of the errors that would otherwise occur.

The fact that the website’s content is made up exclusively by donated content and that it has over 2 million topic articles is a testament to the popularity of this style. While there are no basic rules for submitting articles, there are basic guidelines that Wikipedia asks submitting authors to follow.

Maintaining a neutral tone and presenting the information in a fair unbiased way are the perfect tones that dictate encyclopedia articles. Authors and editors are expected to be respectful of the work of others and not to modify anything without a good reason or verifiable references.

Controversy

Academic institutions and authority reference sources such as encyclopedia companies have been less impressed with Wikipedia than the general public. There are many reasons for the less than enthusiastic response from institutions of higher learning and professional reference companies.

The publishers of Encyclopedia Britannica became enraged when a study claimed that the accuracy of Wikipedia was comparable to the accuracy of Britannica’s long-standing published encyclopedia. They widely disputed the results, insisting that their publication is by far the more superior publication.

Public opinion sides with Britannica. The majority of most people, when polled, have great faith in the reputation of Britannica and hold it in much higher regard than its online counterparts.

The convenience of the Internet encyclopedia version is where a lot of its competition with Britannica arises. Being able to access any information with the click of a mouse brings research to a whole new level.

Wikipedia and Academics

Studies are regularly inconsistent on the accuracy of Wikipedia. There is a wide range in the quality and accuracy of the Wiki articles online.

Articles are constantly being modified and improved upon. When doing research, it is very important to double-check all information. Wikipedia is a great resource, but it should never be trusted as the final word on any topic.

Members of academia are prone to carry negative feelings towards to the use of Wikipedia. Most become agitated when their students source Wikipedia, because they feel their students are not able to tell the difference between a good resource and a bad one – a truthful fact or an erroneous statement.

A commonly held belief is that a student lacks the common sense or ability to differentiate between a good article and a biased, inadequate presentation of a story as fact. Academia also points to the general lack of solid research supporting most Wikipedia articles.

Lazy Research

There is no excuse for laziness, but the blame for it is often placed on the presence of technology instead of where it actually belongs – on the people who rely on technology to provide them the shortcuts they take.

The modern age is one of advanced technology and many students are more than willing to take advantage of the ease of relying on computers and minimal online research.

The primary function of schools is to teach children. Not only are they responsible for teaching them facts, but also for teaching them how to think and solve problems for themselves. When students are no longer able, or willing, to logically decide something, academics are quick to blame the ease of access to technological advances, separating themselves from the blame.

Unfortunately, schools hold as much blame as the technology they bash, for the falling ability of students to produce results on their own. When I was in high school during the early 1980’s, calculators were prohibited in all classes except for the advanced mathematics classes that required the use of scientific calculators. By the mid-1990’s, the children of friends were telling me that they were required to bring a simple calculator to the classroom to assist them in their basic math calculations.

Academia is generally as responsible for the falling academic performance of students as website sources such as Wikipedia. Although academia shares in the blame for falling academic performance with poor resources like Wikipedia, this shared blame should not excuse Wikipedia’s less than ideal service record.

One Thousand Monkeys Typing The Next Great Novel

Wikipedia and all of its sister projects are not perfect. They are websites dedicated to providing knowledge to everyone. Those willing to share what they have learned donate to this knowledge base in hopes of helping others. At least, that is what they do in theory.

The Wikipedia frontier has real possibility for the future, but behind the scenes, it is rife with “monkeys learning to type the next great novel,” as sourced in the Infinite Monkey Theorem at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem). There are some areas of the Wikipedia that are definitely lacking in information and credibility, and yet when someone makes a gesture to add to the Wiki knowledge base, some editors frame these new contributions as unsupportable and unacceptable additions to the Wikipedia world.

The Wikipedia world relies upon its published Code Of Conduct to drive the decisions of its editors. Examples of the Wikipedia Code Of Conduct include: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO

The Wikipedia Monkey Brigade

One extreme example of the “Wikipedia Monkey Brigade” is the story of how Danny Sullivan noticed the attempt by some editor to delete the Matt Cutts chapter in the encyclopedia.

For those involved in the study of search engines, Danny Sullivan is one of the most recognized experts in the field of search engines, and has been since 1997. As the founder of Search Engine Watch, and now the editor-in-chief of Search Engine Land, Danny even has his own page in the Wikipedia world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Sullivan_%28technologist%29

It seems some Wikipedia editor decided that Matt Cutts was not notable enough for his own chapter in the Wikipedia. For those of us who work in the search engine optimization community, such a suggestion is absolutely obscene. As a quality control engineer for Google and the voice of Google’s spam detection department, people in the search industry pay close attention to what Cutts says about the future of search placement within Google.

Sullivan suggested that the attempt to delete the Matt Cutts page was at the very least an example of how “inept” the Wikipedia editors have shown themselves to be. You can read Sullivan’s heartfelt argument here: http://searchengineland.com/070108-170335.php

Almost as interesting as Sullivan’s blog post about the suggestion to delete the Matt Cutts page from the Wikipedia, was the page where people argued the decision about whether the page was worthy of deletion. You can read that interchange here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Matt_Cutts

Those supporting the deletion of the page were quick to point out the Wikipedia guidelines on Notability at: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIO) Strangely, I had read the guidelines myself and I felt that Matt Cutts was a slam-dunk for inclusion.

The Good Faith Argument

Much to my own surprise, the fellow who originally suggested that the Matt Cutts page should have been deleted got into the fray that resulted from his action. He even made reference to having read Sullivan’s comments and chose to use them as a springboard to belittle Sullivan:

“The sources provided by Sullivan in his blog are interesting and some would even make great additions to a number of AfD-submitted articles to help fulfill notability (it’s a shame he spent the time to make personal commentary about me on his blog than to improve these poorly drafted articles, but to each his own).”

For a guy who quotes the Wikipedia guidelines about “assuming good faith” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AGF) as frequently as he does, I think his own comments about Sullivan betray his double standards about “good faith”.

It is true that one would not expect anyone who studied Bioinformatics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioinformatics) in college to understand who the players are in the search industry, but then one would also not expect a person who knew nothing about an industry to judge who is notable in that industry either. It would be like me assuming to be able to identify notable people in the bioinformatics field… Yep, that would be dishonest and silly.

Final Thoughts

The one thing that makes the world of Wikipedia both great and terrible is the same; it is the ability of people to make corrections to the Wikipedia encyclopedia when they see the need to do so. But, the truth is that any monkey with a keyboard and an Internet connection can create and edit documents in the Wikipedia community.

Even I am a Wikipedia editor… I may even be a monkey editor, but at the end of the day, I don’t monkey around editing information about which I am clueless.

Podcasts are on the cutting edge of business communication, allowing you to speak with your own voice directly to your audience. They add variety to your blog or website and prove that you know how to stay ahead of the pack.

But hitting “record” without putting some thought into what you’re going to say and how you’re going to say it is a fatal mistake. Here are eight steps to follow for creating a podcast that makes your listener want to come back for more.

1. Choose a theme. Pick an issue about which you feel confident speaking. Try to narrow it down to a particular angle or perspective-think news clip, not university lecture. The best podcasts touch on a specific subject and cover it in depth, rather than attempting to discuss the history of Western Europe in three minutes or less.

2. Consider your audience. How much does your audience know about your subject? What style of reporting will connect with them? The more you put yourself in your listeners’ shoes, the better you will be able to speak directly to them. Be sure to include a response to any previous questions or suggestions-your audience doesn’t want to feel ignored.

3. Prepare an outline. Expand on your theme by coming up with four or five main elements or topics to discuss. Put the most important and engaging information first; this will hook your listener and entice them to hear out the rest of it. Even if you don’t write your script word for word, an outline will help you organize your thoughts into a tidy framework.

4. Think ahead for interviews. If you want to include an interview in your podcast, it’s a good idea to plan ahead. Make a list of questions you want to ask for sure, but remember that sometimes the best sound bites happen off-the-cuff. Feel comfortable enough with your interviewee to ask follow-up questions and allow the conversation to travel somewhere more interesting if the opportunity arises.

5. Use simple sentences and language. Keep the tone natural and conversational, as if you are speaking with a listener face-to-face-just as you would for any business writing. Toss any words that would send someone reaching for the dictionary; likewise, avoid long sub-clauses and complex syntax (these things only bury the point). Just because your sentences are short and clear does not mean your language has to be dry. Do not be afraid to use sensory descriptions to put your listener right in the heart of the action.

6. Keep it succinct. The length of your podcast depends on your subject and audience-but no matter how much information you feel is absolutely crucial to your point, listeners will lose interest if it drags. No footnotes or unnecessary diversions here; just the facts, ma’am.

7. Do a practice run. This is especially important if you’re working from a basic outline. Read the script for a friend or family member for their (honest!) feedback, or record yourself once and listen to it. Be on the lookout for awkward pauses, confusing sections, and stumbling points. Make notes and do another few run-throughs with the changes incorporated.

8. Print it out. It’s much easier to read from a piece of paper than from a computer screen, so print out your script before you record. Enlarging the font helps too. If you’re worried about losing your place during recording, highlight a few key words or mark the beginning of different sections to keep you on track.

The more thoroughly you prepare your script, the more confident you will be when it comes down to recording it-and the more effective your podcast will be because of it.

A blog is an online version of diary where people write and display almost anything - their opinions, photos, jokes, thoughts for the day and more. People also share stories about their pets, their passion for soccer, stamps… the limit is only your imagination!

In the last few years, blogging has emerged to become a much more meaningful activity than simply maintaining a personal diary. People use it to advertise their products and services, in fact, quite a number of companies even create their online presence by using a blog instead of a website.

Create Your Own Blog

Starting a blog is free. You can create one at http://www.blogger.com - a free service from Google Inc. You don’t need to register a domain name or buy hosting. When you sign up at Blogger, everything happens online. Your blog will be hosted by Blogger and you get an URL like http://yourdomain.blogspot.com. You simply log in to your account and start to write. This is much easier and cheaper than buying your own domain and hosting, then hiring someone to do the web design, writing and coding.

Another free blogging service available online is WordPress which is also very popular and easy to use. WordPress supports more features than Blogger while allowing you to customize your blog with various plug-in. You can check it out at http://wordpress.org.

Monetize Your Blog

While blogging for your own interest, you can in fact maximize the potential of your blog for many marketing or commercial purposes.

The quickest and easiest way to turn a blog into a money-making enterprise is to include advertising on your blog. This can be done with contextual ad programs like Adsense - an advertising program by Google. Basically, you get paid when people click on the ads displayed on your website or blog. Google Adsense program is free to sign up. You can visit http://www.google.com/adsense to learn more about the rules and guidelines of the program. Other Adsense type ads that you can use for blog monetizing are SearchFeed, AdBrite, and Yahoo’s Publisher’s Network (YPN).

Affiliate program is another potential way to make money blogging. By focusing on the subject of your blog post, you can promote relevant products from cost per sale affiliate programs like ClickBank and Amazon. You can write a review about the product or service with your affiliate links embedded inside so you get the commission whenever a sale is made.

Boost Your Blog Traffic

Blogs are quickly indexed by search engines, but you need to update it regularly. Search engines love fresh content and regular update will ensure that your website is indexed and ranked high up as well. The higher up it appears, the more traffic will come to your site, which means more sales. You can actively participate in forums discussion or post comments on other blogs to get more link back traffic.

Whether you use your blog for fun or for work, remember that it’s a highly potential tool any which way. So what are you waiting for? Start blogging away right now!