Comments for Derivadow

Comment on A son’s eulogy by Isabella Quigley Moriarty

Isabella Quigley Moriarty — Sat, 04 May 2013 07:33:54 +0000

If posts were like flowers this one from you brings the promise of new life…lovely, alive, full of nurture and green…beautiful writing…thank you.

Isabella

Comment on Media companies should embrace the generative nature of the web by A rambling post about RiscOS. Ish | Smethurst

A rambling post about RiscOS. Ish | Smethurst — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:11:20 +0000

[...] app store apps they co-operated, they talked to one another. As my friend Tom might say, they were generative. You could drag and drop the output from one app as the input for another. You could write simple [...]

Comment on Some thoughts on rNews by Storytellin’ | Smethurst

Storytellin’ | Smethurst — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 12:01:45 +0000

[...] no claims of event <> event causality, no why, no because. To steal a line from Tom Scott news stories [are] metadata about real world events.. And to steal a line from Jeff Jarvis articles are the byproducts of journalism. Which makes rNews [...]

Comment on Our development manifesto by One from the archive: the /programmes manifesto | Smethurst

One from the archive: the /programmes manifesto | Smethurst — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:59:40 +0000

[...] so hot on the heals of Tom Scott‘s development manifesto for the BBC Nature site I thought I’d dig out the old BBC Programmes (@programmes) manifesto. [...]

Comment on The problem with breadcrumb trails by A tedious post about designing IDs | Smethurst

A tedious post about designing IDs | Smethurst — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:56:40 +0000

[...] you consider your website to be a tree (which for all kinds of other reasons you really shouldn’t – the web is a web, not a tree) and your pages to be leaves, then fragment identifiers are [...]

Comment on UGC its rude, its wrong and it misses the point by Programme shelf life, event TV and social media | Smethurst

Programme shelf life, event TV and social media | Smethurst — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:54:32 +0000

[...] Because it isn’t about a big media company using social media as another source of “user generated content” or a simple promotional channel; they’re promoting the event, not the [...]

Comment on Google Chrome why? by StockholmSyndrome

StockholmSyndrome — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:48:07 +0000

Follow the money and you get to the core.
How does Google earn its money again? Oh right, advertising.
In what kind of program do users get these ads shoveled right in their face?
A browser. Preferably one that has Google search as default search engine and makes it especially hard to add extensions like the famous AdBlock Plus…

Comment on Some thoughts on working out who to trust online by Lee

Lee — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:33:14 +0000

We trust the mainstream news agencies and broadcasters with good reason — they are legal entities that are legally accountable, and generally can be relied upon to tell the truth for purely selfish reasons. Adam Smith aside, there are plenty of first-rate journalists in the field, and their services are sought out by the likes of CNN and The Times for good reason — the actuality of events, or ring of opinion on actual events, viewed in anything other than the immediate present, is valuable to people who wish to plan their course in the world.

The value of so-called ‘social media’ in reporting is that it ‘carries news items’ other broadcasters cannot or will not, for any number of reasons to tedious to relate here. But of primary value to me is that I can personally receive reports from individuals with whom I share a personal bond of trust through personal acquaintance, plus (or, rather, squared with) the point that I can receive reports virtually reliable from friends of personal acquaintances.

Of course, when social media is choked by reports from people with whom you have no personal acquaintance, then it will be said that the news reports of social media as a whole lose credibility. Yet, as the same personal acquaintances and acquaintances of acquaintances remain, so the actual level of truth is static, and depends entirely upon who you know.

How can anyone possibly trust anyone they do not know, or who is not vouched for by someone known personally — such a state would not be trusting, it would be as gullible as trusting a single, virtually anonymous online product review, without consideration that the seller or manufacturer may have written the review.

Comment on Scientific publishing on the Web by Reinventing the article – making a case for the ‘research object’ | Publishing Technology

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:25:12 +0000

[...] at Derivadow.com, Tom Scott offers some insights into some of the possible directions for journal sites that he’s considering at [...]

Comment on Publishing to the iPad by Tom Scott

Tom Scott — Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:01:32 +0000

From a publishers perspective the EPUB doesn’t explicitly help – generating the content on the server from the raw XML certainly does. But yes storing the content as EPUB means the content is accessible/ isn’t DRMed and that helps others.

Incorporating non-NPG content and retaining the same experience is a challenge – both in terms of rights and implementation. It would add complexity to grab other people’s XML and render that as EPUB before pushing it to the app. Not impossible but complex. We do support searching for content on PubMed and ArXiv which I realise isn’t what you mean but is a nod in that direction.

FYI the ENCODE app is built using an earlier branch of the NatureJournals source hence the similarities.