Sometimes you only learn by doing – such as “when I post an update to my blog, how does it look on Facebook?”. Hence this post 🙂

It was WordPress SEO Again

Again WordPress SEO stopped my posts from being publicized to Facebook. Deactivated it and posts went through. Activated it but turned off Open Graph (In Social Settings) and it went through. Now I’ve re-enabled Open Graph and we’ll see if this goes through!

(And it didn’t, so I disabled Open Graph. We’ll see how long it behaves)

Publishing to Facebook?!?

For reasons I’ll never understand, the WordPress Jetpack social plugin that’s supposed to be able to publish my stuff everywhere (i.e. FB, Twitter, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Google+) sometimes doesn’t want to publish it to the network I get 70% of my traffic from: Facebook. Not sure what that is, but I’m back to the old grind of deactivating plugins trying to find out why. This post will probably go to FB, simultaneously helping me (by fixing the problem) and mocking me (by fixing the problem) at the same time!

Publicize to Facebook not working? Check Yoast WordPress SEO!

Now that WordPress’ built-in publicizing function works with Google+, it’s an obvious way to hit all social networks at once. However I found out that one of my existing plugins was messing with specifically publication to Facebook. And since a lot of my social interaction comes via Facebook, this was a problem.

I traced the issue down to Yoast’s WordPress SEO plugin, which has an option to turn on Open Graph meta data under it’s social settings. I’d disabled this because previous versions of the WordPress Publicize plugin (or perhaps Yoast’s) had fought about what tags to throw in there, resulting in Facebook not showing anything. Apparently the situation is now reversed, and you DO want to turn the option on.

Screen Shot 2014-01-12 at 12.33.25 PM

After turning it back on, my posts now flow to all my networks, including Facebook!

Hopefully this helps someone – I spent a few hours working on finding exactly where the problem was!

Ladies, If Your Man Doesn’t Want Sex, Just Drug and/or Rape Him

A few months ago I posted about finding a forum post (Which I’ll link to if you want to read the entire thread) which majorly creeped me out. Long story short: Woman’s husband doesn’t have a very active sex drive (or maybe just motivation to have sex with her). She asks for advice. Amid some semi-useful stuff comes the suggestion to… well… rape him.

Screen Shot 2012-08-17 at 8.39.23 AM

Tonight I was posting a comment on Facebook and thought of this post, so I went back to the forum, and I found another piece of advice.

Screen Shot 2013-01-16 at 10.09.41 PM

 

So if you’re not willing to rape him, you could just drug and frustrate him. Probably not going to get you a rape conviction, but it is probably good enough for domestic abuse.

Now I’m not going to pretend that this is the only double standard in the world, but honestly, if you switch this entire conversation around, it’s really really disturbing. (Of course there are some that still aren’t sure what rights people should have to consent, especially if they dress a bit too sexy – just ask many of my Indian friends who are concerned about this issue in their country).

Others have caught on to this creepiness, of course few in the forum actually admit they’re advocating illegal behavior or take such concerns seriously. Heck, one woman admits to the ‘cuddle’ trick:

Screen Shot 2013-01-16 at 10.26.09 PMIf I were “The bf” I wouldn’t go into the bedroom ever again. I’d also stop accepting prepared food, and find someone a bit less inclined to joke about raping me.

 

 

Post to Google+, Automate Your Shared Items, And Other Super Syndication Techniques

Before Google+, all was grand in Jon’s world of Super Syndication (Much to Jason Dunn’s chagrin). I posted things straight to ping.fm, and it sent it everywhere I wanted. I hadn’t found a really good way to archive my ping.fm statuses, but did have a pretty awesome way to share posts from Google Reader simply by pressing the share button.

Then Google changed everything, and while I like Google+, it just didn’t fit. It lacked some basic things – no RSS feeds out, no automated posting interface, no email posting, and in no hurry to add any of these things. But It did have instant photo upload, a pretty nice client, and a few other niceties.

So I had a problem: I wanted to keep things nicely automated and easy to use, but needed some features. Principally I needed to be able to post to 1 service and have it go to all 3 big social networks (FB, Twitter, G+), I needed it to be platform independent (So no browser plug-ins), I hoped it could be easily automated, and I needed an easy way to share things out. Along the way I hoped to pick up an easy way to automate storing things I shared with others. I’ve now accomplished all of this, and will reveal the magic to you! Continue reading “Post to Google+, Automate Your Shared Items, And Other Super Syndication Techniques”

Money for Thought

I recently read and posted on my Facebook a USA Today story (Using The Chronicle of Philanthropy as their source) that Walmart, Beloved Low Price Supplier or Hated Evil Corporation (depending on whom you ask), topped the list of charitable cash contributors, donating $288 million last year. AT&T was second at $240 million, BoA third at $209 million, and down the line (source). A friend of mine from Grad School posted the following comment:

I thought this was an interesting question, so I ran some numbers. Walmart made about $14 billion in profits last year, and donated $288 million in cash, roughly 2%. AT&T, by comparison, made about $8 billion (Info from here, taking income and removing re-investment and dividend payments), donated $240 million in cash, roughly 3%. It’s undeniable that Walmart could donate more, however the difference between 2% and 3% isn’t so huge as to be a glaring difference (e.g., it’s not like Walmart donates 2% and AT&T is donating 6% or 10%), and these are huge numbers here to be sure.

One thing I thought was interesting was that Walmart seems most interested in providing for those who need food, as the article cites, pledging $2 billion over 5 years to combat hunger. This seems to me like one of the best uses for corporate donations today – to help people who desperately need help on a basic level. Donations helping stop hunger, and advance education and personal growth, all rank highly on my most deserved cause list. Donations to political campaigns however? Those aren’t too high on my list.

I bring that up because another philanthropy related piece that came up this week involved Target & Best Buy giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to a politician, Tom Emmer, who isn’t very friendly to pro-gay causes (some might even label him a Bigot). Whatever your view on gay issues, I find it deeply disturbing that companies donate so much money to politicians in general, especially polarizing ones such as Emmer, all in the name of supporting candidates who “seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives”. Now to be fair, Walmart also shells out a lot of money to politicians, and I’m sure some are just as unsavory as Emmer appears to be. So where do I shop? Do I go to a store with low prices that some feel are set on the backs of their underpaid and poorly treated workers? Do I go to stores with higher prices that aren’t afraid to support a possible bigot in the name of profit? Do I just not shop at all?

Well, obviously the last one isn’t an option. I need to buy toilet paper somewhere. In the end I guess it comes down to price, for good reason. Shopping at Walmart let’s me keep more of my own money, that I may donate to causes I agree with. It’s less money that I’m giving to them to control and spend, and thus less money going places I potentially might not want it to go. If I shop at Target or Best Buy, I’m spending more money for products that I can usually find of equal quality at Walmart, and more money goes toward issues that I may or may not agree with. In the end, I’d rather control my money philanthropically, so I can be like this guy and freak people out by donating to causes I choose.

Thoughts?

Add Facebook Friend’s Birthdays to your Calendar Automatically

Lifehacker recently published an article detailing a few ways to help remember the things you actually care about, as opposed to those you don’t but remember anyway (such as the MVP of the 1996 All-star game). One of the little gems that was tucked in the article was the application fbCal which integrates your Facebook Birthdays and events with the calendar of your choosing. I have this now set up on my Google Calendar and am extremely happy as it’s A) always up to date and B) putting information where I’ll actually look for it, not where I don’t look (e.g., a sidebar on facebook.com)

To get it set up, all you need to do is install the fbCal application to your facebook account and allow it offline access (So you’ll have two prompts to hit “OK” to when installing):

image

Once it’s installed, you can then choose how to export your calendar. The tool exports in the standard iCal format, so it’s easily imported into desktop PIMs like iCal on the Mac and Outlook on the PC. It not only includes birthdays, but can include events as well:

image

Since I use Google Calendar, I clicked on the Google Calendar link and was taken to my calendar, then asked if I wanted to add the new fbCal calendar to my list of calendars. It adds as a shared calendar, which means that it will automatically update whenever I add a friend (Or I guess if a friend changes their birthday!). It gave a very long and annoying name to the calendar, so I changed that by drilling into settings and changing the name:

image

Now on my Google Calendar main page, I have the FB Birthdays calendar, which I can toggle on and off as desired:

image

All of this took around 10 minutes, and the feed took about an hour (for some reason) to show up in my calendar. Now it’s working just fine and I thought it was cool enough to share here! Happy calendaring!