ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, October 01, 2016

Why I no longer link to Steve Sailer

Or quote him, or quote the Saker, or link to any other writer on the Unz Review. I received this notice from Blogger yesterday:

We have received a DMCA complaint for your blog, Vox Popoli. An e-mail with the details of the complaint was sent to you on Sep 30, 2016, and we reset the post status to "Draft"; you can edit it here. You may republish the post with the offending content and/or link(s) removed. If you believe you have the rights to post this content, you can file a counter-claim with us. For more on our DMCA policy, please click here. Thank you for your prompt attention.

The complaint was related to a post entitled Cold War II, in which I extensively quoted The Saker and provided a link to The Saker's article on the Unz Review from which I quoted. There are three problems here.
  1. It is obnoxious to file a DMCA complaint instead of directly contacting the writer with a request to take down or modify his post. My words get quoted, repeated, copied, and even plagiarized every day, and I have never filed a DMCA complaint about anyone. This is only the second DMCA complaint I have received; the first was from SFWA when they wanted to hide their embarrassing report about me from the public.
  2. I have an email from the Saker giving me permission to utilize all of his work; we're even planning to release a collection of his excellent work on the Russian invasion of Syria in an ebook one day.
  3. The Saker told me that the rights to his work have been released to the public under one form of GPL or another; I'll have to look it up to determine precisely which license it is.
So, until I a) hear from someone at the Unz Review, b) the DMCA complaint is either withdrawn at their own request or Blogger is informed that it is illegitimate and was filed by someone without the rights to do so, and c) I am assured that no DMCA complaints will be made against VP or AG in the future by anyone in their organization, I will neither cite nor link to anything on the Unz Review.

Caveat: if I go to the trouble of successfully counter-claiming and proving that I have the rights to quote the Saker as I see fit, I will continue to read and quote and link to him.

Lest anyone doubt that I am serious about this, I should mention that there was a strategy-related service that used to send me emails, unrequested, every day. One day, after I posted a quote from one of their emails and linked to their site as I had previously done from time to time, they sent me an email demanding that I stop posting quotes from their emails. So, I promptly unsubscribed, and after a few months went by and they realized they had lost an amount of regular traffic, they asked me to resubscribe and start linking to their posts again. I declined to do so, having found superior alternatives in the meantime, and spamfiled them. That was years ago. I haven't visited their site or read a single email from them since. I don't even know if they're still around.

If any site doesn't want a writer with monthly traffic of ~3 million pageviews providing them with links and traffic, that's fine. I am too busy to waste time working with fools, the obnoxious, or the obtuse, and I have a surfeit of prospective sources from which to draw. I already feel that I don't read half the material or address one-quarter the subjects I should. Regardless, as you can see, I have removed Steve Sailer from the list of Day Trips on the sidebar so as not to risk any future violations.

And just to be clear, I'm not blaming Ron Unz, Steve Sailer, or The Saker for this. I tend to doubt any of them even knew about it.

UPDATE: This appears to be an SJW attack on the Unz Review. He said the following in the comments:
Someone mentioned this situation to me. As might be guessed, this was the first I'd heard of it, and I assume it's some sort of hoax intended as petty harassment by some random activist on the Internet. Anyway, I'm not too familiar with either these DMCA complaints or how Blogger works, but if you'll drop me a note explaining whom I should email to explain that it's fraudulent, I'll be glad to do so.

Regards,
Ron Unz, Publisher
I have, of course, restored the link to Steve Sailer at the Unz Review and I will be contacting Blogger accordingly.

UPDATE: I have filed a counter-complaint with Blogger, citing Mr. Unz's statement as proof that the complainant did not have the right to the content. That should suffice to resolve the issue.

Labels: ,

72 Comments:

Anonymous Steve October 01, 2016 6:11 AM  

Every time I see Steve Sailer mentioned I get that Styx song in my head.

DMCA is gayer than Evan McMullin singing Diana Ross songs at a Marco Rubio foam party.

Blogger Lazarus October 01, 2016 6:49 AM  

to file a DMCA notice one has to pinkie swear it is their stuff. (under penalty of perjury) Now, who Polices that?

Looks like it is wide open to abuse, yes?

Blogger Salt October 01, 2016 6:59 AM  

Lazarus wrote:to file a DMCA notice one has to pinkie swear it is their stuff.

Looks as easy as registering dead voters.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable October 01, 2016 7:21 AM  

Is there any chance some of the provocation of Alt-Right in-fighting in the last couple of days is the work of 'mysterious third parties' not to be named?

I mean, not to be paranoid, but this is unreal.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 7:29 AM  

You make a good point. If I were Vox, I'd ask them directly if they indeed filed the notice. If they emphatically state that they did not do so, then certain conclusions may follow.

Blogger pdwalker October 01, 2016 7:30 AM  

It's 2016 and there are still people who don't understand how this new fangled internet thing works? Well, I suppose the web is only 23 years old. We'll need another 70ish to ensure all the old dinosaurs die off and make room for the mammals.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 01, 2016 7:42 AM  

That is unfortunate

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 7:47 AM  

We should definitely be sharing our notes on whether these... "coincidences"... seem to be happening at an elevated pace. Normally I would laugh this off as tinfoil hat stuff, but with some of the recent craziness, I don't know. They really could be that desperate.

Blogger Tank October 01, 2016 7:54 AM  

Why not call up Steve and talk to him?

Blogger ZhukovG October 01, 2016 7:55 AM  

There have been too many 'events' targeting Alt-Right and Alt-Right allied persons to simply be dismissed as mistakes or coincidence. I think Vox is taking the correct action and I am sure this matter will be cleared up soon.

As for teaching people to use the internet; perhaps Al Gore can do another documentary after he deals with Man-Bear-Pig.

Anonymous johnc October 01, 2016 8:02 AM  

This is one of the downsides of being on Blogger or whatever. They can just outright turn your whole shit off for no reason at all and then claim they're "looking into it" for about three months.

Blogger VD October 01, 2016 8:17 AM  

Why not call up Steve and talk to him?

I don't have his number or his email. Also, this may well be happening to other sites and dealing with it quietly would prevent everyone from realizing that it's a purposeful campaign.

I'm not bent out of shape either way. For all we know, there is an SJW entryist at Unz and this will permit them to smoke him out.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 8:20 AM  

With luck, we might even be able to find out some people who are on certain payrolls that they shouldn't be on. Like, let's say that nobody in their organization knows anything about this, but they trace the notice to some low- or mid-level employee who inexplicably got the idea to do this. If so, one might do well to take a look at this person's background.

Blogger Basil Makedon October 01, 2016 8:20 AM  

I'm going to put on my day-job (IP lawyer) hat for just a moment.

While I don't know whether this particular outlet engages in this practice, but platforms sometimes outsource copyright monitoring to clearing houses.

If you recall from a couple weeks ago a content provider (IIRC it was Warner Bros.) ended up flagging ITSELF for copyright violations.

In actuality they didn't flag themselves, the service they hired to monitor the net failed in its QC. Increasingly these services are automated -- badly.

It would be interesting to know how this particular DMCA complaint came about.

Blogger VD October 01, 2016 8:21 AM  

This is one of the downsides of being on Blogger or whatever.

Unlike other SJW-run organizations, the people at Google seem to understand that giving into full convergence will reduce rather than increase their influence. They've never made any attempt to interfere with me or my content. Amazon generally takes the same approach, although they have taken a sketchy step or three.

It's not an accident that those two companies continue to be successful, while most of the others are struggling. Convergence guarantees eventual disruption. I suspect the top guys at Google and Amazon understand the concept of Fox Newsing.

Anonymous Ron Unz October 01, 2016 8:24 AM  

Someone mentioned this situation to me. As might be guessed, this was the first I'd heard of it, and I assume it's some sort of hoax intended as petty harassment by some random activist on the Internet.

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with either these DMCA complaints or how Blogger works, but if you'll drop me a note explaining whom I should email to explain that it's fraudulent, I'll be glad to do so.

Regards,

Ron Unz, Publisher
The Unz Review
Ron@unz.com

Blogger Laramie Hirsch October 01, 2016 8:26 AM  

Link to my website, on the DREAD ILK SITES bar!

I've been here forever, man!

Blogger VD October 01, 2016 8:30 AM  

Someone mentioned this situation to me. As might be guessed, this was the first I'd heard of it, and I assume it's some sort of hoax intended as petty harassment by some random activist on the Internet.

That's good news. I suspected as much. Don't be surprised if it's also happening to others who link to you. I'm certain this is not an attack on me, it's an attack on you.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 8:36 AM  

I have literally NEVER pulled the Soros card, but now I'm pulling the Soros card. The most nefarious possibility that this isn't even merely an attack on Unz, but this is a coordinated operation of infiltrators playing Alt-Right, and Alt-Right -friendly organizations against each other from within.

Blogger Hector Henry October 01, 2016 8:40 AM  

Vox handled it the right way, out in the open. This allowed Unz (and others) to see what was being done.

This puts everyone on alert to yet another SJW attempt to silence opinions they don't like.

Anonymous Lord T October 01, 2016 8:45 AM  

There must be something that can be made from this. They enabled censorship at the very least by their mickey mouse processes.

I know it isn't much but I do like to irritate firms like google where I can.

Blogger exfarmkid October 01, 2016 8:52 AM  

Very educational. Thanks for posting this.

Blogger Zimri October 01, 2016 9:06 AM  

I'm glad this is getting cleared up.

It surprised the hell out of me that Mr Unz would be in any way involved in petty DMCA abuse. Almost the whole Internet has been excerpting the Unz Review's content for years. Plagiarism and wholesale content-theft can happen, and I assume the culprits get slapped for that, but few people online are dumb enough to do much of that these days. Least of all Vox.

Anonymous Ironsides October 01, 2016 9:52 AM  

Another delightful feature of SJWs is that at the same time as they moralize at you with supremely smug obnoxiousness, they use every kind of nasty, low-down, dirty trick to try to silence you.

"The (((skype))) cries out as he strikes you."

Anonymous szIlk October 01, 2016 9:52 AM  

SSSHHH! huhuhuhh! I'm huwnting wabbits!

Blogger Lazarus October 01, 2016 10:17 AM  

The offending party needs to be found and charged with perjury.

Blogger Nate October 01, 2016 10:40 AM  

damn Vox.

They're positively terrified.

Blogger YIH October 01, 2016 10:53 AM  

This isn't new, torrentfreak has been attacked with DCMA claims too. Sorry folks, no torrents there. So has Alex Jones, his videos that his company uploaded to the official Infowars YouTube channel have been taken down by spurious DCMA claims as well. BTW, I'm no fan of The Joker, but even he doesn't deserve that.
The problem is there is no kind of penalty for filing a bogus DCMA. And do you think (((Hollywood))) and (((ASCAP))) are going to care? Why should they?
They know how the deck is stacked, after all, they were the ones who stacked it.

Blogger Salt October 01, 2016 11:06 AM  

YIH wrote:The problem is there is no kind of penalty for filing a bogus DCMA.

Not necessarily. Filing spurious claims can have consequences cognizable as damages; civil suit. I could see Jones as one who might take such an issue up.

OpenID randkoch October 01, 2016 11:15 AM  

Somebody needs to pay.

Or, rather, all of them need to pay.

Yet one more reason to never let any SJW tell you they support free speech.

Blogger James October 01, 2016 11:25 AM  

The Great Lesson I learn from this Unz-DMCA-Gate episode is not to jump to conclusions about who is doing what to whom and why. I admit that as I began to read this post I was thinking, "Sailor and Unz, what a-holes." Then it emerges that Unz doesn't even know how to file a DMCA complaint, apparently. Dang, man, those Soros-paid saboteurs really got me going. Like the guy said, the more open and above board and honest we all are the better for us and the worser for George Soros.

Blogger YIH October 01, 2016 11:55 AM  

Salt wrote:YIH wrote:The problem is there is no kind of penalty for filing a bogus DCMA.

Not necessarily. Filing spurious claims can have consequences cognizable as damages; civil suit. I could see Jones as one who might take such an issue up.

Two problems: Tracking down who's doing it (might be some pinhead in Whackistan like the spammer who's been paying this blog a visit recently) and proving monetary damages. Good luck with that.
Perhaps a temporary or permanent ban from posting DCMA requests for abuse. Vox seems to do pretty well with that tactic.
But would (((they))) even accept that restriction? Surely you jest.

Blogger Were-Puppy October 01, 2016 12:12 PM  

@19 Markku

I have literally NEVER pulled the Soros card, but now I'm pulling the Soros card. The most nefarious possibility that this isn't even merely an attack on Unz, but this is a coordinated operation of infiltrators playing Alt-Right, and Alt-Right -friendly organizations against each other from within.
---

I was chicken little about this a few days ago. Was unable to grab much attention with it, but found on Twitter - it's probably Soros and Hillary related.

CTR Plot
https://archive.fo/4iOTI

I think they are a PAC. If they are doing this, I'm sure others are too.

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 01, 2016 12:13 PM  

Eventually we are all going to end up on the DarkNet.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 01, 2016 12:15 PM  

IIRC, thunderf00t used the DMCA's counter-claim provisions to get one of his persistent pests to make a very public video apology in lieu of paying major damages.

This would be a really good thing to do right now.  Find out what thunderf00t did, and put the ilk onto getting it done here.

Blogger Cynic In Chief October 01, 2016 12:36 PM  

Vox, find out who this was and verify it (don't want false info on a DMCA to lead to more friendly fire). Publish who it was and the Dread Ilk will make them regret it. We've been waiting for some fresh SJW meat for a while. I've created rightops.co to help the Ilk coordinate on operations, even those that are too small to draw the Supreme Dark Lord's baleful eye. We're hungry and ready for action.

Blogger pdwalker October 01, 2016 1:03 PM  

@6 A reply to my own comment:

The internet allows open communications, so little problems like this are easily resolved to parties that actually communicate.

Do the saboteurs believe they can be more than an inconvenience?

Blogger vanderleun October 01, 2016 1:14 PM  

It's a mystery to me why, other than sheer inertia, you remain tied to this platform. I mean blogger is free, but it might be a lot better if you took control of your site. It costs what about 30 bucks to run a site from a host that is not google. Spend the bucks.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 2:21 PM  

It most assuredly does not cost 30 bucks to run a site that loads smoothly with nearly 3 million pageviews, and which is a constant target of very aggressive DDOS efforts. The database is the choking point. And cloud databases are paid by amount of usage. It gets VERY expensive, VERY fast, with that kind of load.

Blogger Anonymous Conservative October 01, 2016 2:25 PM  

I have noticed a curious thing which I am unsure of the relevance of. Vox periodically links to my site, for which I am grateful. Now I used to see this url in my referring url box on my stat page, and I could see the traffic he was sending translate into views for the page he linked to.

Then back around April I had a traffic surge on one page which came out of nowhere. I looked at raw stat logs, and saw nothing. I then saw Vox had linked in when I came here, but there was no referrer attached to the traffic. I looked back and sometime in Feb, I believe, according to my logs, I stopped getting any traffic from here, though I know people were clicking through because I saw the surges.

I can now tell when Vox links because traffic surges, with no change in referring urls in either wordpress stats, or raw log files.

I do not know how you strip out the referrer data, who would do that, or why, but it seems very strange, because I see other BlogSpot sites as referrers, so it is not the platform. The only reason I could see to do it is to keep all site owners from noting Vox's traffic and reciprocating with help to Castalia, or promoting his books.

I just put it here, in the event somebody sees any utility in the data.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 2:37 PM  

I checked. Unfortunately, it turns out that the side-effect of moving from http to https is that referrers disappear. However, it also turns out that there is a way to restore them for some, but not all, browsers. In 2013, Internet Explorer had no support for the method, and for Firefox it was in progress. So, the situation could be much better now.

I suppose Matthew will need to get to work...

Blogger Anonymous Conservative October 01, 2016 2:48 PM  

No worries, I thought it was nefarious. If not, then no problems

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 2:55 PM  

No, you make an excellent point. Nobody had noticed that before. I think referrers are indeed important. We'll see what we decide to do about this, if anything.

Anonymous Flavia October 01, 2016 2:56 PM  

There was a lawsuit a few years back about phony DCMA complaints. It was between two odious SJWs but the result was settled out of court but the wronged party was happy with the result. The Skeptical OB vs. The Feminist Breeder

Anonymous SciVo October 01, 2016 3:28 PM  

pdwalker wrote:It's 2016 and there are still people who don't understand how this new fangled internet thing works? Well, I suppose the web is only 23 years old. We'll need another 70ish to ensure all the old dinosaurs die off and make room for the mammals.

Well just because the mammals use it in unexpected ways, doesn't mean we don't need dinosaurs to maintain what they created. You'd seriously expect a rabbit to?

Blogger Paul October 01, 2016 3:39 PM  

Two things I might throw in here.

First, on more than one occasion I've wanted to read more of material of which only a snippet was quoted here, only there was no link or reference for me or any other reader to follow. Providing one would have improved the experience of the VP reader.

Second, these enormous walled gardens like Blogger and WordPress that function by running ads on literally tens of millions of individual blogs are populated by equally large numbers of scraper sites that exist solely on the basis of scraping content without attribution from blogs like this whose authors work to put up the content, but, far worse, there's no reason not to think that the outfitss like WordPress et al don't do an unknowable amount of the scraping and fake blog establishing themselves, simply to boost the blog acreage upon which they can then attach and charge for the paid advertising that supports them. This used to be known as rebranded rustled cattle.

So when you see an outfit like WordPress announcing an aggressive pushback against DMCA takedowns (Google it) in the very virtuous name of free speech, just remember that in any given case that can just as easily be an intimidation tactic against a hard working blogger like Vox trying to chill any impulse of his to fight back against theft of his content, thus letting one of the outfits like Blogger or WP steal it themselves, without attribution, for their own profit.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 3:46 PM  

First, on more than one occasion I've wanted to read more of material of which only a snippet was quoted here, only there was no link or reference for me or any other reader to follow. Providing one would have improved the experience of the VP reader.

In my experience that is very, VERY rare. I think you just haven't usually noticed it when he links like this, making the link a part of the prose. Whenever there is a snippet, look for a couple of underlined words in Vox's part of the text.

Blogger papabear October 01, 2016 3:46 PM  

Facebook is now going on the attack on links from Alpha Game Plan and Vox Day; left a comment on the Disconvergence post as well about this.

Anonymous elmertjones October 01, 2016 4:10 PM  

I have yet to receive threats for my Salon parodies, but not for lack of effort.

Salon’s Uncanny Valley Between Feminism and Parody

http://wp.me/p6QFjS-ff

Blogger VD October 01, 2016 4:29 PM  

Unfortunately, it turns out that the side-effect of moving from http to https is that referrers disappear

I just turned it off. See if it works now.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 4:52 PM  

Ok, people, click this link: http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/william-f-buckley-a-case-study-in-narcissistic-personality-disorder/

Blogger Dave October 01, 2016 4:57 PM  

Clicked...

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 01, 2016 5:23 PM  

For the test to be useful, first you need to change the https:// to http:// in the location bar, reload the page, and THEN click the link.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 5:25 PM  

Ah, yes. It looks like it doesn't automatically take you to http, but if you click the big "VOX POPOLI" at the top of the page, then you get taken to the http side of the site and all posts will also be http versions.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 5:26 PM  

No, wait, posting a comment also takes you to https. There may be a problem still. Possibly in settings, possibly in Matthew's custom code. Will have to check.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 6:14 PM  

No, looks like this is just Blogger's inflexibility. The way it currently is, is good enough. Unfortunately some people will have https in their bookmarks, and that can't be helped. Unless we use the method in my earlier link, those can't be helped. There is already a javascript function that adds a meta tag to all links, so it wouldn't be very hard to add another one and solve the problem entirely. But not today.

Blogger Dave October 01, 2016 6:38 PM  

Test

Anonymous Sam Malone October 01, 2016 9:40 PM  

Or, if you had the technical proficiency, you could set up your own server on your own domain with your own CMS system and not have to worry about such nonsense.

But I guess the brilliant VOX DAY is content to look like a blogger from 2005 who just doesn't know any better.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 9:45 PM  

We already have services that run that way. We know exactly how to set them up. But database service that can handle 3 million monthly pageviews is expensive. We'll just let Google do it for us for free, until they don't. We know exactly how to export the content from Blogger, and reinterpret the database dump into another content management system. We'll do it when we have to, and no sooner.

Anonymous Siobhan October 01, 2016 10:03 PM  

"But I guess the brilliant VOX DAY is content to look like a blogger from 2005 who just doesn't know any better."

This just makes you look jealous and pissy.

Anonymous Sam Malone October 01, 2016 10:48 PM  

Hilarious. No one with credible traffic keeps a blogspot domain. It is weak. Very gamma. Your content is under someone else's control. And it makes you look like a rank amateur.

C'mon. Even Scalzi figured out how to get his blog under his own domain.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 10:52 PM  

Now you're just phoning it in. Very low energy.

Anonymous Sam Malone October 01, 2016 11:00 PM  

Like Trump when he's reading off a teleprompter? Man, that's a low blow. Totally uncalled for.

But, seriously, get your own domain, host your own server. Take control of your destiny.

Otherwise, you not only look like a loser, you are a loser.

Bigly.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 11:04 PM  

I set up castaliahouse.com . From the day Blogger's censorship becomes too much of a problem to warrant starting to pay for this, Vox's blog is going to be back up in a week, max.

Anonymous Sam Malone October 01, 2016 11:19 PM  

Oooihh. You set up one domain. Big man. I am so impressed.

But you let your client continue, for years, with his dick (however tiny it may be) hanging out, publicly. leading to completely avoidable nonsense like DMCA takedowns of his own personal blog posts. Weak. Pathetic. Ridiculous.

VD might just want to pay for some competent tech support. Since the big man can't seem to handle it himself.

Blogger Markku October 01, 2016 11:35 PM  

I did a lot more than that. It's just that setting up the domain, and WordPress on it, is the only thing you need to know because it's the only thing relevant to the topic.

Blogger pdwalker October 02, 2016 1:41 AM  

Markku,

i'm surprised at you, you're feeding the troll (unless you are just trying to make himself look more stupid, that's ok)

anyone with experienced knows what running a big site means. Sam Baloney is either stupid, and/or a troll.

i'm going with "and"

Blogger joe b October 02, 2016 6:07 AM  

I have learned lately that many 4gw cultural warriors are appropriately careful with identifying information. This includes not hot linking (even to actual permalinks), proxying, VPNing, and stripping referrer information. I think you're right about the helpful info for good actors and link-backs, but the risk (as you can see from this post and various others like Cernovich), the warriors should definitely wear their armor. Don't be surprised if you see less and less information about your visitors.

Blogger VD October 02, 2016 7:13 AM  

I guess the brilliant VOX DAY is content to look like a blogger from 2005 who just doesn't know any better.

He certainly is. I have resolutely ignored all the new trends in blogging, including Blogger's new templates. And as a result, my blog has outlasted and out-trafficked most other blogs.

One correction: 2003. The blog looks the same as 2003.

No one with credible traffic keeps a blogspot domain.

Observably false.

Anonymous Hezekiah Garrett October 02, 2016 10:49 AM  

JUST? Sometimes jealous and pissy are a vast improvement.

Blogger James Dixon October 02, 2016 12:18 PM  

> Looks like it is wide open to abuse, yes?

Yes. This is a feature, not a bug.

> The problem is there is no kind of penalty for filing a bogus DCMA.

There could be, if the courts wanted there to be. It's perjury and possibly contempt of court. The lawyers involved could be disbarred or even jailed if the courts chose to do so.

> No one with credible traffic keeps a blogspot domain.

The fact that you are posting here invalidates that claim.

> Otherwise, you not only look like a loser, you are a loser.

So why are you posting here again? Surely you don't want to be associated with losers.

> But you let your client continue, for years...

And this merely verifies that you a simple paid troll. Go cash your check while it's still good.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 03, 2016 12:45 AM  

Sam is funny. There are plenty of people here wo manage web presences for a living, who would gladly volunteer if asked to do so. I've managed servers for companies whose names are probably on the electronics in your pocket, the clothes on your back, the communications you are sending and receiving and the shoes on your feet right now.

The question is, as always "Does the current system cost-effectively meet the business need, and will it do so into the foreseeable future?" If the answer is yes, then you do not change it.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts