Splitting sites

Today, I surgically removed zonker.net from WordPress.com and co-hosting with Dissocated Press to have a cleaner split between personal and “professional” topics.  The next step will be figuring out what blogging software I want to use for Dissociated Press for the next 20 years or so and start self-hosting it again as well.

I don’t do a lot of blogging on Dissociated Press these days, since I spend most of my time writing about open source for LWN.net, but I’ve never been 100% comfortable mingling personal topics with posts meant for a much wider audience. Not that Dissociated Press gets millions of page views, but…

Anyway, I hope to pick up the pace of blogging here about random things that don’t fit for LWN.net and are too long or less ephemeral than what I put up on Mastodon.

That’s 100…

A fantasy radio computer newspaper device, generated by AI (Midjourney). Kind of steampunk cross between an old radio, computer, speakers and a faded screen with nonsense characters.

Today is, if I don’t miss my count, 100 days since I started the 100 day blogging challenge. I’ve updated the site every day since November 21st last year.

It’s been a good exercise. Some days I don’t have a lot left in the tank after work, some days I feel like I could do two or three posts. Focusing here has been great for breaking the Twitter habit.

Question is whether I plan to keep going or take a break. The answer is… maybe? Not letting myself off the hook tomorrow, but I might give myself a few days off here and there. Next week I’m planning to attend SCALE, which will be my first work travel in quite some time. That might cut into any quality blogging time, or it might be something to do when I’m winding down after a long day at the event.

Also considering whether I want to split the blog up a bit into personal and non-personal. Right now zonker.net and dissociatedpress.net point here. I’ve been wondering how I could break out zonker.net into a personal-only blog and have a more “professional” presence on dissociatedpress.net. It’s a bummer that WordPress.com hosting doesn’t make that easy.

Until tomorrow…

Making things vs. making the best things

Nice post I discovered on the Orange site today, “I don’t like making the best things.” Short summary, trying to make the “best” things gets in the way of doing things we enjoy.

Specifically the author talks about blogging less often after they discovered they “only want to publish the best things, so I didn’t publish at all.”

Not exactly a new concept, but one that we probably all need to hear or read on a regular basis. It’s certainly something that’s blocked me quite a bit. Feeling like you always need to put something out that’s perfect is a really good way to never get things done. It’s the enemy of fun and the enemy of productivity.

Especially on a personal blog, there’s no reason things need to be perfect. While it’d be nice if everything I wrote was perfect, it doesn’t need to be. Mainly I want to get some thoughts out of my head (too many in there anyway) and maybe start some conversations.

Maybe I’ll give somebody else an idea, maybe I’ll get a comment that teaches me something or helps me think about something a different way. Mostly? I just enjoy writing when I get out of my own way and do it. I hope others enjoy it as well. If not, well, it’s not like they made a major investment to get it.

I know for a fact I enjoy having completed something, even something imperfect, more than I like looking at something unfinished or having nothing to show for perfectionism.

Changed history forever

People often try to fluff up the importance of an event or person by saying it “changed history,” “changed the course of history,” or “changed history forever.” (Or something along those lines, you get the idea.) There’s just one problem with that type of phrase: it’s completely, 100% wrong.

History is stuff that has already happened, or the study of stuff that’s already happened. No matter what you do today – no matter how important or how much it upsets the expectations one might have for events to come – unless you’ve invented time travel and actually gone back in time and changed the past you have not changed history at all.

What one usually means to say here is that something happened that had a major impact and events would unfold differently than one would have expected.

For instance, Abraham Lincoln “changed history” by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. But, of course, he didn’t change history at all. He did something that had an immense impact at the time, and that would have a ripple effect that lasts to this day. It was enormously important. But, and this is crucial, he did not change history one tiny little bit. He made history, but he didn’t change it. History, as Lincoln knew it, remained the same. But the future was as of yet unwritten, and so our history is what happened as a result of his actions.

In short, “changed history” is a lazy, awful phrase. Don’t use it.

9 phrases we should stop seeing in tech journalism

  • This reporter” – Just use the first person. It might have worked for Edward R. Murrow, but with tech journalism – particularly blogs – it sounds like a ridiculous affectation. If you wouldn’t say it out loud when retelling a story, don’t write it. (And if you would say this out loud when telling a story, seek professional help.)
  • The company told Acme Publication” – Bullshit. The publication is an abstract entity. Nobody “tells a publication” anything. People talk to reporters, and it’s OK to actually acknowledge that a human exchange took place rather than subsuming the reporter’s place in a story to a drone in the service of a publication. It’s 2012, embrace 1st person voice already.
  • The company said in a statement” – OK, sometimes (but very rarely) there’s an excuse for using this. However, I don’t really care for quoting company statements. Few things scream “rehashed press release” more than just throwing in quotes from press releases/statements. Most publications I’ve written for have strict policies against using quotes from press releases. Either talk directly to the source and try to get more than is in the press release, or just don’t bother quoting them at all.
  • Future plans” – This is just a pet peeve. All plans are future plans. Just say plans. (You also don’t need to indicate that something is your personal opinion. Just say “my opinion,” OK?)
  • Smith believes that” – Really? Are you a psychic? I didn’t think so. It’s impossible for a reporter to know what a source thinks. Maybe the source really believes their company is going to have a great quarter despite losing 2/3rds of their engineering team and having no cash on hand to pay the rest of the engineering team and sales folks. Steve Ballmer may believe that the iPhone has “lost its cool.” More likely, they’re bullshitting you. It’s OK to quote a source saying they believe something, but asserting that they believe something is sloppy.
  • Exclusive” – No one cares.
  • Anything-killer” – I’ve probably done this myself, so mea culpa. But this is so over-used now, and so very often wrong. Mostly, though, it’s the binary nature of the argument that I find most objectionable. It’s possible for two successful products of similar types to co-exist.
  • Is X the New Y?” – No, it’s not. Especially in reference to all the “is X the new Microsoft?” That implies that, you know, Microsoft has stopped being Microsoft, which isn’t at all in evidence. (I suspect even Microsoft would agree with me on that…)
  • Other cliches and over-used phrases – It’s not entirely fair to slam writers for using stock phrases when they’re writing several articles a day. Many tech editors and writers complain about headlines that are over-used are dealing with simple fatigue from reading far more headlines/articles than most people. But, some phrases really do need to be culled. For example, “controversy swirled.” This might have been a dramatic and interesting turn of phrase once, but it’s just tired now.

Peak vs. Pique

Image of lead press type

Here’s another writing pet peeve — when folks confuse peak (or peek), and pique. Here’s an example of proper usage: I live in Denver, Colorado, so I have a lovely view of the mountain peaks when I look to the West, but my interest is piqued when I find a good book about world history.

Instead, what I see most commonly is “this really peaked my interest,” or “I thought this would peek your interest.”

This doesn’t trouble me too much when I see it on blogs, mailing lists, and so forth. I’m used to seeing language atrocities there… but it’s just a different story when it’s something from a communications professional, i.e., from a PR person.

(This post originally posted on Zonker.net, rescued from /dev/null thanks to copy/paste and Archive.org)

How to make money writing, the query letter (or email…)

Image of lead press type

Prior to taking the job I have now as editorial director for Linux.com, I was a freelancer for about six years, writing for Linux Magazine, Enterprise Linux Magazine, UnixReview.com, Linux Weekly News, IBM developerWorks, ZDNet, and a few others.

I thought I’d share a few tips here that might help prospective authors get a little work on the side, or maybe even start up a freelancing career of their own.

In the tech industry, it’s not necessary to be the world’s best writer to get work. Clean copy that’s accurate and easy to read will be just fine — you don’t have to be John Irving or P.J. O’Rourke to get work. It helps to be a subject matter expert in one or two areas, or to be able to do research rather quickly, if you want to write tutorials and HOWTO type articles.

The first step, though, is to send a query email to the target publication. I’ve written hundreds of queries, and read even more, so let me share a little of what I’ve learned that may help you be more successful in getting a query accepted.

  1. You should be familiar with the publication, and read their writer’s guidelines thoroughly before submitting a query. Pitching a 8,000 word article to a publication that spells out its preference for 1,500 word articles is a bit silly. Sending in unsolicited manuscripts to a publication is also usually frowned upon — though some publications accept them, you’ll find out through their writer’s guidelines if not.It has been my experience that authors that do not follow the writer’s guidelines generally, if not always, tend to submit articles that are of lesser quality than the writers who follow the guidelines.
  2. Introduce yourself. If you’re pitching to a publication for a first time, or the first time following a long interval and/or change of editorial staff, you should provide a little information about yourself — such as “Hi, I’m Wana B. Author, and I’ve been using Apache since day two. I have extensive experience as a Webmaster, and I think I’d be an ideal person to write an article about tuning Apache performance.“This is infinitely better than a query that just starts, “What about an article on…?” Once you’ve established a rapport with the editors at a publication, you can be less formal (usually) but it’s best to start off with an introduction.
  3. Your query should be free of spelling or grammatical errors. When I receive a query that has numerous errors, I have no desire to edit an entire article by the prospective author. Maybe they will make more of an effort when submitting the final product, but why take that chance? If the author can’t even bother to use their Shift key (”hi, i’m a linux admin, and i’d like to write an article on apache.”) I’m probably going to say “no thanks” to their submission.
  4. Your query should be brief, descriptive, and interesting. I’d say the best queries are no longer than three paragraphs (if they include an introduction) and contain everything an editor needs to know to decide whether an article is suitable or not.For example: The XYZ project has just released version 11.0 of their popular software. I’d like to write an article that looks at the new features in this release, whether users of XYZ 10.0 should upgrade, and how to upgrade or install XYZ if they chose to try it out.The article would be about 1,500 words, and be aimed at users with intermediate or better skills. I could have this to you within three weeks, if you approve this pitch. Instead, what I often see is something like this:I’d like to write an article on XYZ.

    Guess which article will be approved?

  5. Acceptance first, money second. Many publications will publish their pay rates, but if not, wait until after an article is accepted to ask about payment.
  6. One at a time. Most publications want to have an exclusive on an article for a period of time — could be as little as 30 days, or it could be much longer. You’ll find out once you see the publication’s contract.
  7. Be prepared for rejection. Don’t expect every pitch to be approved. It’s not personal — and most of the time editors will say why a query isn’t accepted. It’s not unusual, for example, for several people to offer to write articles about GNOME when a new version comes out, or for us to have a staff writer working on something when we receive a query from a freelancer on the same topic. Or, maybe the topic is too general, too ambitious for a full article, or just not quite right. Take a deep breath, wait a day or two, and try again.

If you’re really interested in learning how to write query letters, hit Google for query letters, and you’re bound to find a few samples that you can use to start with.

(This post rescued from the dustbin of history thanks to the copy saved by archive.org.)