July 10th, 2008


Can they be stung?

A "commemerative" silver leaf "coin striking" of a 20 dollar bill is being marketed.

It's appealing to the idea of, "we will never forget" about That Tues. With the numbers for the value being added up from 9, and 11.

The reverse is the part one is supposed to look at, with the towers of the World Trade Center frosted on a smooth background, "Glowing as they did on that fateful morning"

Seven years, that's what it's meant to recall. Why seven years is supposed to be so important, I have no idea, but they are pushing it.

Now, I happen find this sort of wound-poking, pain-retaining, exceptionalist crap, really offensive. To be honest, it disgusts me.

They say it was going to be sold at an intial offering price of $39 US, but now it can be had for the face value of $20.

But there's a catch. It not legal tender in the US, it's legal tender in Liberia. Can I send them $20 Liberian (which is, $.32 US as I type this). Because they say it's being offered at the "face value" and as I understand it and made a point to show Whole Foods the other day) if you have an advertised price, you have to sell at that price.

I'd love to make them take a bath on this piece of shit.


So, I went to join a critique group at flickr. They tout themselves as being for the working, or dedicated, photographer, who, "wants to move to the next level" (which is really ugly wording, but sadly typical).

This is one of those groups which wants (nay, demands) that one give comments on specific other photos; when posting a photo, and leave that photo up for a week so anyone else who wants to may comment. This doesn't prevent anyone else from looking, or commenting, but it does give a focus.

I was rejected. Apparently my photos didn't meet the standards of the group. I will take them at their editorial word and assume that "we reviewed your photostream" and not a single guy.

I wonder what the criteria are? I have guesses (based on the rest of the pool). It's not really my ability. I have photos at least as technically competent as most of the photos.

It's that I am not shooting the sorts of things they like. Perhaps it's that my stream isn't nothing but that. They are afraid; because of just how I've combined the various things I shoot, that rahter than this:

Goat in doorway

Or this:

Blue Sky and Power Line

Which are both very much in keeping with the photos being offered up.

I'll offer up somthing like this:

Catching the wave (best viewed large)

Which isn't.

But, since they managed to be as dismissive as they were, not so much the rejection, but rather the, "you aren't good enough to even try to help/benefit from our critique," tone of the letter, I don't think I'll repetition for membership.

About that rejection

One of the main reasons I paid for a "Pro" account at flickr was the self-indulgent ability to look at my referrers.

The, "background radiation" for my account seems to be about 45 views a day (on days with photo posts here, or on which I do a careful amount of posting to groups it'll pop up to about 150. I had an anomalous 568 once).

So the rejection letter from the group in my last post said, "we've reviewed your photostream".

Right. If we assume that "we" means two people, and I have 348 pictures. They range from the so-so to the pretty damned good (if I do say so myself), to the oddballs which get really steady Google hits.

I ought to see a bump in traffic.

So, yesterday was 69 photos looked at (with 110 clicks to a page, be it photo, set, or stream). Tuesday I got 99 total hits (and about 60 discreet photos, detailed breakouts are gone after 24 hours).

Most of that, I can credit to work on the show I'm trying to build, and I got a higher than usual slew of google hits (and not to the usual suspect).

In other words, assertion that, "we looked at your photostream,"... was so much hot air, because the level of looking two people should have done to make that claim... more than a bump of 15-20 extra views.

Ok, enough of the ridiculously self-referential posts of "how great am I."