Walt at Random

The Berkeley effect? At one point, in one ranking system, UC Berkeley was rated as the best university in (the world? the U.S.?). Not because all of its departments were best at what they do (they’re not). Indeed, it might have been ranked best even if none of the departments was rated #1 (which several are, depending on who’s doing the rating). The key: Berkeley has (had) so many departments in so many disciplines that are ranked within the top five or top ten: It’s a case of overall excellence and extreme breadth.

Which relates to cruising, Crystal and Conde Nast Traveler because Crystal once again scored highest of any cruise line in last year’s survey, as it has for years. I was reminded of that when we got a flyer from Silversea that, on the cover, claimed Conde Nast Traveler had rated it tops among cruise lines (false) and, inside, included the correct claim: Silversea ranks highest among small-ship cruise lines. (Silversea’s ships carry 296 or 382 passengers; Crystal’s ships carry 940 or 1080 passengers. While 1080 passengers counts as “small” as compared to the megaships that most mainstream cruise lines use, the typical dividing line is 500 passengers.)

In the January 2006 “Gold List” feature, each hotel, resort, and cruise line that qualifies is ranked by survey responses in several categories–six of them for cruise lines. Crystal certainly didn’t rank #1 across the board, but I think they might have come out on top even if they failed to be first in any of the categories (which isn’t the case):

• Cabins: Crystal’s weak point compared to other luxury lines. Five of the eleven Gold List lines score higher, some of them substantially higher.
• Food: While Crystal is excellent in this category, scoring better than most ultra-expensive hotels, two small-ship luxury lines (Seabourn and SeaDream) score even higher.
• Service: Crystal scores 97.1 out of 100–but SeaDream scores 98.2! (SeaDream’s ships house 110 passengers. We have yet to meet anyone who cruises SeaDream; we may be too ordinary to ever meet such folks.)
• Itineraries: Crystal is tops here at 94.7, but barely ahead of Silversea and Grand Circle.
• Design: Crystal’s also #1, significantly ahead of the runner-up.
• Activities: Again, Crystal’s #1 and well ahead of the runner-up

The overall result is that, despite relatively weak Room scores (88.0, when the top score is 96.6), Crystal comes out with an overall 94.1–while the four other luxury cruise lines are clustered closely together (Silversea 92.4, Seabourn 91.9, Radisson Seven Seas 91.3, SeaDream 90.2). (The sixth-rated line is back at 87.0.) Could Crystal have emerged on top if it was second in every category? Quite possibly.

We’ve only been on one other luxury line (Radisson Seven Seas, second among large-ship lines), but from everything I’ve heard, these ratings are right on the money. This year’s poll may be different: the Crystal Harmony is no longer part of Crystal, and while it’s our favorite ship, there’s no question that its rooms aren’t as good as on the other two Crystal ships (and not in the same league as Radisson Seven Seas’ all-suite ships). So room ratings might go up–but the Harmony was also the quintessentially-perfect ship design. (My sense is that the itineraries are also less adventurous with only two ships.)

Seeing those detailed ratings also explains why some reviewers who do walkthroughs have wondered why Crystal scores so high. It’s not the cabins; it’s everything else–and “everything else” really only sinks in during the course of a cruise. For that matter, the design isn’t flashy (quite the opposite) or grand; it’s just effective.

I wish this cruise post was a way of hinting that we’re on our way. It isn’t: indeed, for the first time in more than five years, we have no cruise booked. It really was triggered by the misleading Silversea brochure.

OK, I knew Jon Stewart was funny. I knew he was talented.

According to this post from Siva Vaidhyanathan, I didn’t know the half of it:

“Jon Stewart had a baby over the weekend”

Now that’s impressive. I trust his wife was in the waiting room or by his side while this phenomenon occurred…

I wrote a mildly snide post about the ads during the Super Bowl–I don’t watch the Super Bowl, never have, but I wasted the time to watch all the ads (plus four rejected ads) on Google Video today.

And Lishost ate my draft: When I clicked “Save as draft,” Firefox couldn’t make the connection.

There must be a cosmic lesson there, particularly given the domain registrar that Blake recommends and who I’m more delighted than ever that I don’t use…

So: Never mind. Pro football’s not my thing. The Dove ad was nice. The Glaxo “Asthma Control” ad was a clever tribute to a classic ad. Otherwise…well, I guess you need a big-screen TV, loads of bad beer, and a bunch of friends to make these ads really special. I’ll let it go at that.

I’ve read advice about being a Proper Blogger, e.g., writing stuff in Word or equivalent so you can spell-check, get grammar advice, and go through as many drafts as you need, then putting up posts with future dates so you have a nice steady stream of material.

If that works for you, great. I do most of my writing in Word–but (with one exception) none of my blogging that way. When I’m working in Word (other than “work work”) I’m usually writing columns for print publications or essays for Cites & Insights (or doing other “traditional” writing work).

Nor (with specific exceptions) do I postdate material, which may be obvious given that I sometimes have three posts in one day followed by a week or more with no posts.

Here’s how these posts get written. I have a few minutes (at work) or half an hour or more (at home) and an idea that I feel ready to blog about (either from my little book of notes, like this one, or more frequently either because I encountered something I wanted to comment on or Just Because). I open WordPress [still a slow process] and click on Write. I choose some categories and start writing.

Not the “WYSIWYG option” in the new WordPress; I don’t have the new WordPress installed yet; I’m on 1.5.1.3. I use the “quicktags” bar some of the time; some times, I just key in the limited HTML that I use. It’s sort of a small editing window, but it’s OK.

I finish the essay (and, as you know, some of them really are essays), save as draft, and click on the draft to see it as it will appear in the blog. (Oh: Now I see that clicking “Advanced Editing” shows me the “as it will appear” version without an explicit save-and-restore.) I correct bonehead errors (the endless hyperlink, etc.) and maybe look over what I’ve written and refine it a little.

Then I click on Publish.

I started on this essay at 3:05 p.m. [PST] Sunday, February 5, which for some reason gets datestamped as 6:05 p.m. (I’m not a football fan. Such is life.) You can see when I finished it by the time stamp.

When I write books, print columns, and formal print articles, I normally submit a second draft–but each of those drafts has involved a fair amount of the intradraft editing that’s standard practice with word processing. I call Cites & Insights “1 and a half draft” writing, but even there, the first draft involves loads of intradraft editing.

I’m not sure what that makes this blog. First draft? Half-draft? I do know that it isn’t spell-checked and that the only grammar checking is the nut behind the keyboard. I’m sure you’re getting my “real voice” in about as raw a form as you’ll see (possibly excepting email or list responses). Real-time wordsmithing works for me, and it’s probably the only way I’d do a blog.

Disclaimer: I’m not saying anyone else should blog this way. I’m just saying it’s the way I do it.

What about the exceptions? The “Word exception” should be obvious: I write Off-topic Perspectives (reviews of old movies in DVD megapack) in Word, and post each disc’s worth when it’s done–but note that I write the four reviews for that disc after I finish viewing the last movie on the disc and usually post the commentary without any additional editing. The “postdate” exceptions included the first post (which I wanted to appear on April 1) and a few posts on cruising that appeared during a long cruise. There may have been one or two other exceptions, but that’s about it.

I remember reading about the Music Genome Project a while back. Don’t recall whether I ever wrote anything about it–the effort to classify individual pieces of music along several hundred axes as to how they sound. Chances are, I would have been curious but skeptical. (Well, duh: Walt Crawford would have been curious but skeptical…)

Somebody (?) pointed me to an LA Times article on Pandora, a streaming music website making the Music Genome Project into a real service. The article is enthusiastic, suggesting that this service can nudge you to new music that you’re likely to like but might never have heard of–and that new musicians love the idea, with music companies being cautiously interested.

I don’t listen to music as background much (except in the car), but I had to do some other things in the vicinity of the computer, so I thought I’d give it a try. You start a new “station” by providing Pandora with one or more songs and/or one or more artists you like, and “tune” it by giving a thumb’s up or thumb’s down to individual songs it comes up with. You can define up to a hundred stations, and have a free account (with ads) or a $36/year account (without ads). It’s streaming audio at 128k MP3, and it sounds better than most MP3 streams I’ve heard.

My “station” started with Randy Newman (surprise, surprise), to which I quickly added Tom Paxton and James Taylor. I only listened for about 20 minutes–but damned if it wasn’t hard to move away from the station. Sure, some of the songs were from the artists I chose. But the others were, with one exception, right on the money–and they were all songs and artists I would not have known about.

This isn’t social software: Your radio stations are only influenced by the work of the project itself and your own choices (but you can choose “favorite” stations and email your stations to other people). It might not work at all for you. I still don’t see that I’m going to spend a bunch of time listening at my PC. But, well, so far, I’m impressed.

Hmm. Wonder what Joni Mitchell, Ry Cooder, and Boz Scaggs might yield… Some day, when I have some time free…

Quick update, now that I’ve installed my snazzy new MS Wireless Natural Pro keyboard & optical mouse…finally, there’s a wireless MS Natural keyboard, and the wireless mouse is even better than my old Logitech wired optical…: So that’s my second Pandora station, Mitchell Scaggs Cooder. Right now it’s playing “Ooh Baby” by Gilbert O’Sullivan–and I think I can see why. This station tests my own likes, since I only like most of Joni Mitchell, maybe 1/3 of Boz Scaggs, and some unknown but large fraction of Ry Cooder. Hmm. “Back on the Road,” Earth Wind & Fire. Makes sense, and I’d never make that connection. I see how people find Pandora a trifle addicting…

The latest Informed Librarian has a “Guest Forum” contribution “Reading the Tea Leaves” by Chris Olson. IL invites comments, but only via email–and when I tried to go back this morning to check on the address, the site appeared to be offline. So…

Olson looks at the OCLC Perceptions report and finds things there that somehow eluded me. “People say that they use the library less, that they read less…”

Odd. The report I read shows that 69% of U.S. respondents had either increased their use of libraries or stayed about the same over the past few years, and that 73% expect to either use libraries more in the future or use them the same amount. (The figures for Kids These Days, the ones who’ve abandoned libraries and print: 74% and 88% respectively.)

“That they read less”? Maybe I didn’t read the report carefully enough, but I see nothing in the report that says people are reading less. Never mind; my reading skills may be impaired.

Olson also accurately reports that people equate libraries with books. And that most people feel that they can find information on their own.

Olson later has one of those sentences that tends to stop me in my tracks: “Libraries are no longer the sole keepers of information or providers of access.”

That’s like saying that the U.S. is no longer the only democracy or capitalist country in the world. “No longer” implies something that is simply false. Libraries have never been the sole “keepers of information or providers of information.” Never. Get over it. Nor, in my opinion [repetitive rant] have libraries ever been the first or most important source of information for most people in their daily lives[/rant]. Ever.

So what’s Olson’s conclusion? “Anyone who can change their brand name or drop the word ‘library’ from it, should consider doing so if they want to be perceived as offering something other than books.” Oh, and they should make sure that branding stays away from any association with libraries or books…

Olson doesn’t say “Any special library or corporate library.” Olson says “Anyone.”

Hmm. 80% of survey respondents view libraries favorably. As libraries. Even as collections of books.

Now, if you really believe that your library is an “information service,” then maybe Olson’s advice makes sense. For many special/corporate libraries, that’s a reasonably accurate definition. For, oh, 99% of public libraries and, I would argue, most academic libraries as well, “information service” is a tragically misguided term as a primary descriptor.

Chris Olson’s marketing firm “has transformed libraries into uniquely branded information services.” If you’re in a public library and ready to throw away 80% approval rating in favor of pushing your role as doing something that most people explicitly say they’re perfectly capable of doing themselves…well, I trust you have another career in mind.

Maybe it really is a divide between “information professionals” and “librarians.” Which are you?

Here’s the last disc in the first half (more or less) of this TV-movie megapack. Three war-related movies and the making of a revolutionary!

Coach of the Year, 1980, color, Don Medford (dir.), Robert Conrad, Erin Gray. 1:36 [1:34, jacket time 2:00].

Chicago Bears star comes home from Vietnam partially paralyzed; Bears want to hire him, but as a PR person, not a coach. Meanwhile, his nephew gets sent to juvenile hall for one of many offenses—and, visiting him, the old football player offers to coach the juvies. Naturally, after getting clobbered when he challenges a hotshot local high school team, his team comes back to win in a rematch. Cliché city, with Robert Conrad mostly being angry. Not quite as bad as the worst IMDB user reviews, it’s still mostly a rehash of a rehash of a done-to-death plot… Decent print, no special virtues. $0.50.

Wake Me Up When the War’s Over, 1969, color, Gene Nelson (dir.), Ken Berry, Eva Gabor, Werner Klemperer, Hans Conried, Jim Backus, Danielle De Metz. 1:14.

This one’s a charmer. Berry’s an American officer who falls out of a plane (he’s supposed to be throwing out propaganda leaflets) over German-occupied territory. He lands in a young widow Baroness’s (Gabor) estate. She hides him and takes advantage of the situation (ahem)…and continues to hide him for five years after the end of World War II, hiring local ex-Nazis to come once a week and tromp around looking for him. When he finally escapes, still not knowing the war’s over (and, after five years, not speaking a word of German), he causes a certain amount of havoc before, of course, Everything Turns Out Fine. Fluff, but well-done fluff, with a first-rate TV-level cast. $1.25.

Katherine, 1975, color, Jeremy Kagan (dir.), Sissy Spacek, Art Carney, Henry Winkler, Julie Kavner, Jane Wyatt. 1:37.

Apparently based on the life of Diana Oughton, an upper-middle-class young woman turned Weatherman. Portions are characters talking directly to the audience about their motivations; the rest is Spacek going from Peace Corps-style reformer to agitator to underground Weathermen-style radical. Carney and Wyatt play her wealthy parents. Winkler, in the most sinister role I’ve seen, plays her revolutionary lover. Everything most definitely does not turn out fine. Good songs from the period. So-so print and sound quality. Well acted for the most part, dramatic, could work as a modest theatrical picture (with a big cast); I’d give it a higher price if the transfer quality was better. $1.

The Ballad of Andy Crocker, 1969, color, George McGowan (dir.), Lee Majors, Joey Heatherton, Jimmy Dean, Bobby Hatfield, Marvin Gaye, Agnes Moorehead, Pat Hingle. 1:14 [Jacket time 1:30].

With a cast like that, how can you go wrong? Turns out it’s easy when there’s no worthwhile plot and the hero loses our sympathy ten minutes into the movie. Majors, a grade-school dropout from Texas who lives for racing motorcycles on weekends and repairing them during the week, gets injured just enough in Vietnam to come home with a medal. First night out in LA, a hippie chick takes him to a pad shared by several couples. They don’t spit on him or anything like that, but eventually make it clear that he’d be better off elsewhere. So the vet—the apparent hero of this story—steals a motorcycle from one of the hippies and drives home to Texas, where he finds that everything’s a mess. His girlfriend’s married (and pregnant, but still Joey Heatherton using the talents for which she’s best known). His motorcycle/race track “business” (co-owned with Jimmy Dean) is in ruins (and Dean winds up selling it out from under him). His farmer father (Hingle) is reduced to driving trucks. Marvin Gaye’s in there somewhere, as an Army buddy now in Oakland, maybe in five minutes of the flick. Lots of good old boys offer help, but the vet’s only interest is reviving that worthless business. The vet winds up beating up his partner, trashing the stolen cycle after a long chase with cops, somehow getting to Oakland…and the movie ends with him waiting for the Army recruitment office to open. What a waste of talented players. Generally good video and sound quality. $0.50.

Just got a look at January 2006 statistics for Cites & Insights (as always, thanks, Dan!).

So far, the special Libraries 2.0 and “Libraries 2.0″ issue is far from the most frequently downloaded issue, but it’s done well for the first three weeks (2,861 visitors for the PDF).

The single essay that makes up the issue also isn’t the most frequently visited HTML article (that’s “Investigating the Biblioblogosphere”)–but it’s close (4,984 visitors), and far ahead of third place. I’d guess it will eventually be the #1 separate essay–and I’ll also guess that the issue as a whole will never be the most downloaded issue.

Not at all surprisingly, almost all of the visitors to the HTML essay got there directly from external links (4,555 out of 4,984).

I made an informal promise to myself after preparing the followup essay that begins Cites & Insights February 2006: No comments on blog posts regarding Library 2.0, at least not for a few weeks.

That’s turning out to be a tough promise to keep, but I’m sticking to it. For now.

Coffee break’s over; back to work.