 egoldstein says: I look forward to hearing the various opinions people have on this issue. boo Time for a gut check Actually I agree with you, if the intent is to make Clipmarks more like contextual links to articles of interest as opposed to them actually being the articles of interest themselves. If the fine line is between 1000 and 2000, then so be it. I think the message is conveyed by the limitation, and the goal is achieved by the design of this site, so I hardly care if you drop it to 1K from 2K. This is as long as the private clip concept of the Clipmarks stays as is. In my mind, private clips (organizer tool) holds more than 50% attraction of this site compared to other options we have available else where. You will be diminishing your uniqueness. A questionable move. By the way, Eric, I'm getting lots of server error pages today. For instance, when clicking on "Expand" and "add to collection" when saving clip. I think CM would still retain its uniqueness though I can see what you may mean by comparing it to others (digg, delicious etc where you can only post links and tiny descriptions). The ability of CM's engaging and dynamic front page and its mature community aspect is way above all else (even after the onslaught of new clippers, it has retained its uniqueness). Hmmmmmmm, I have wondered about that ever since I arrived here. If some tend to make their clip the object of interest, then I guess I must plead guilty to that. Damn, I hardly know what to say, other than I like it the way it is, and the way I have become comfortable using Clipmarks. However I do get your point Eric, and it is a valid one. Far be it for me to try to change your vision of what Clipmarks should be. Yes, but what has drawn them in? I think it is the ability to do so much more here. I just don't get the wisdom in offering less. Funny, but if the proposed limit were in effect now, I doubt that this very clip would be poppable. In my case, more than 90% of the time, if the title of the clip sounds interesting, then I jump straight to the full article. The clips have in a way already been screened once for "interestingness" by the clippers and therefore thought worthy of reading, so no need to for me to check once again by reading the clip and THEN going to the article (which I always do). I usually just jump straight to the full page to get the whole story or article, skipping the clipped info entirely. Whether the clip is big or little doesn't really matter to me, the title that's decisive in whether or not I chose a clip or not. If the Clipmarks team is getting complaints from content providers, then I would support reducing the pop limit. Otherwise, I would prefer to keep it as it is. If it was lowered, I guess I would more often just clip titles & introductory paragraphs for clips that I want to be poppable, rather than figure out how to squeeze all of the things I find interesting in one clip. And I'm not sure that a clipping with just a title & introductory paragraph captures the essence of Eric's ideal clip. Everyone will adjust accordingly, just as they had to when the 2k limit was imposed (oops, I meant introduced). Personally, I think 2k was relatively decent, although from the storage standpoint I can see the reason for getting things smaller. I still think implementing my prior suggestion would help in this regard, where people can clip nothing more than a URL without any content. Sometimes I have to select something to clip just because I have to, when I really only want the headline, tags and the URL. Good points, JK. Also, with columns the essence and meaning is often saved to coalesce in the last paragraph. Clipping just the title and last paragraph is unfair to the author. It is sometimes extremely difficult to try to represent a piece fairly with excerpts. Another factor is that very often these pieces are only made available for a short time. You have to grab them in their entirety or they're lost. I think content providers have valid reasons to be concerned about, and for this I don't blame CM either. BTW, may I throw in my suggestion here while I'm at it (sorry if someone else has already suggested this). How about making the above clip-o-tv box really watchable by making it youtube/google friendly? I mean, ability to embed videos in them directly watchable without clicking on the link? Also, the same for flicker/picasaweb pictures. What I like about Clipmarks is that the clips can be long enough to convey the essence of the article without forcing me to single out phrases out of context. The formats of the sources I clip from frequently limit me to clipping a whole paragraph at a time, when a few sentences taken from several paragraphs are what I would like to clip, so it often takes several full paragraphs to include all I want to include in the clip. If I could just cut and paste, or could highlight what I want from different paragraphs and clip that, it would be different, but it doesn’t work that way. I respect your right to change the pop limit to whatever you want it to be, Eric, but fear that you are making a bi... Very much agree with your second point, Arif, however, I think that those who object to what is done in exposing and drawing traffic to their sites by Clipmarks users are petty fools who don't know a good thing when they see it. But, I don't recall anyone at Big Clip offering this as a real concern. Have I missed it? I agree entirely with gingembre comments. I second darcy's comment Yes, but what has drawn them in? I think it is the ability to do so much more here. I just don't get the wisdom in offering less.There is a lot of wisdom in that Godfrey. Wow, i never expected the debate to be so evenly divided. Even more shocking is Godfrey posting 7 of the first 17 comments  Seriously though, I think gingembre's point is very valid. I'm just concerned that instead of clipping the truly "clipworthy" pieces of articles, people are too intent on filling up the clip right up to the 2,000 character limit. There is no question in my mind that often times more is less. In my opinion, many clips on the site would be better if they were shorter. Perhaps it's just a culture thing that I hope becomes more pervasive. six. and one was off topic Just an example of a clip that i think is ideal size. My goal is to allow people to learn as much as possible about as many things as possible in as little time as possible. Maximizing those three variables is what drives me. Just trying to find the perfect size clip to facilitate that. I'm new to clipmarks and have yet to post any clips. I've enjoyed reading the clips so far, but sometimes it is just as quick to go to the page. I don't know if 1k is adequate... sounds okay to me... I have an advantage over some ot the newer Clippers here, Goldstein, in that my love and respect for you is established and I am therefore less likely to go along with a bonehead idea like this just as a show of respect and deference. And therefore, further, my opinion should carry significantly more weight due to the blunt honesty.... I clip using the FF plug in, and perhaps if it allowed me to be more picky on what I clipped, or give me the ability to trim it down after clipping, then a lower word count wouldn't be a problem. That said, I would rather see a clip with a little too much information than not enough. Well, I'm not going to surprise anybody, but I don't like the idea, this could be a bad move. I very much agree with gingembre's, jklugman's & Mr. Daniel's comments on this. But it's up to you. And eric, GD is totally on the point when he says this clip wouldn't even be poppable. As a newbie to clipmarks, I did what I thought was a very nice clip from a page, to which I received the comment: "I imagine there's lots more at the source...". While it made me feel like my clipping was inadequate, I thought, well of course there's more at the source, that's why there's the "visit page" button. As a person who only likes to skim pages, I think clipmarks is FABULOUS! But when a clip ends up clipping the whole page, the purpose is defeated. I like gingembre's suggestion of just certain lines instead of entire paragraphs. But either way, I prefer keeping it short. I don't like to read verbose sites as it is (kinda like what this comment turned out to be! UGH) While it made me feel like my clipping was inadequate, I thought, well of course there's more at the source, that's why there's the "visit page" button.I didn't interpret it that way; it seemed like he was saying "I haven't read the whole article, but just what you've clipped makes sense and is worth acting on". I very often like complex thoughts and ideas. Complex ideas generally require complex expressions when trying to capture their essence. Complex ideas often are worthy of our consideration, and popping brings that consideration. Fewer pop-able characters allows, perhaps, only less complex thoughts to be considered. Limiting a thoughtful user who chooses her clip content carefully in an effort to dampen the less thoughtful users potentially lessens the value of the site in some measure. Let the "clippers" decide how much they want to contribute. If you open a clip and it's too long for your liking, move along to another one. I don't see the harm in leaving it where it is, unless of course the 2,000 character clips are having some adverse effect on the system. Don't put a cap on creativity. The fact that the Clipmarks has demonstrated what it considers to be an ideal clip has already put a cap own my creativity. I feel stifled, and already decided not to clip a couple of information pieces I was excited about and wished to share with others. . I say drop it to 1500 characters for about 30 days and see how that goes. It may be better than reducing it by 50% all at once. If 1500 is still too much, you can always go down to 1000 then. Have a Happy New Year. Oh Wise Amphibian here's a little workaround for those occasions. Clip the entire piece, then do a poppable clip of that clip. I, and I think JK denote these with this, [P], following the original clip title. f Socratoad, I would suggest you remember the wisdom wrought so well in the 1960s, "Question authority." Otherwise, I would prefer to keep it as it is. If it was lowered, I guess I would more often just clip titles & introductory paragraphs for clips that I want to be poppable, rather than figure out how to squeeze all of the things I find interesting in one clip. And I'm not sure that a clipping with just a title & introductory paragraph captures the essence of Eric's ideal clip.I agree with this statement from jklugman. Excuse my previous comment, please. That was an accident. It seems to me that if the essence of Clipmarks is being considered then perhaps a highlighting feature could be added. Then a clipper could clip up to 2000 characters and then highlight portions he thought were particularly important or thought provoking. This way the clipper could clip everything he needed and those who like short clips could just read the highlighted portions. Just a thought. I clip using the FF plug in, and perhaps if it allowed me to be more picky on what I clipped, or give me the ability to trim it down after clipping, then a lower word count wouldn't be a problem. That said, I would rather see a clip with a little too much information than not enough.And I agree with this statement from n2sooners. I wish the cliptool allowed me to be more picky on what I clip. Sometimes I clip an entire paragraph just so I can get one sentence. But regardless I prefer the 2000 clip limit. I remember when we first instituted cliplimits and it was put at 1500 or 1000 (can't remember), but it was then raised to 2000 becuase the clipmunity was not to happy with th... Very interesting idea. I would like to add my name to the list of those who would like to see a more flexible clipping tool. Thanks for hearing us out, Eric. I second the above 'flexible clipping tool' suggestion, anything that gives freedom to choose what to clip versus the limitation of the orange box, is a winner. Sorry, I meant to say "how" to clip. Arif, you do know that you can clip without the use of the orange boxes by using the selection method, don't you? Yes, I'm talking about the way we could probably multiple clip by dragging, currently you can only drag text once, I would like to drag clip more than once along with using the orange box within the same clip. I think this character limitation is a non-issue if we have a clipping tool which is completely under user's control (as in what diigo provides), currently it is not the case with CM. I've used the selection method but it limits me to consecutive characters--so no skipping and clipping through the article that way, unless there is another way of doing it. Also, the selection method doesn't count characters like the orange boxes do, to let you know when you've reached the magic number for popability. I don't like it. Yes, the selection method has serious limitations. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of it. Wow I didn't know that Diigo had clipping now. I'll have to check that. Ok, this one is clear. The pop limit will remain at 2,000 characters and a more flexible clipping tool is very necessary. I appreciate everyone who voiced their opinion...very convincing!! 1500? diigo doesn't have clipping like CM, but it let you annotate free hand. Cutting down the character limit is a wonderful idea. If I like it, I go right to the website--if the clip is too long, sometimes I lose interest. A really good idea. A more flexible tool is wonderful. I echo those before me who have wanted to only clip a sentence in a paragraph and have had to clip a lot more just to get that sentence. don't reduce the character limit. it would be a mistake. Thanks, for that clarification, Arif, I was thinking maybe I'd missed an update. I think it's pretty telling that, in order to get your point across, you had to use 1893 characters, including spaces. Could you have said it as well with 893 few characters? Not snarking, just saying. Sometimes something has to be pretty weighty to get the message out there. Cheers! I'm pretty new around here, but would like to say that there are alot of great comments here. So far, I'm thinking that if the clipping tool remains as it is, then I prefer the 2K limit to anything smaller; however, if the clipping tool were more flexible, I think we could get by with the 1K. I really enjoy cruising the clips and reading enough to determine if the article would interest me, and the one fear I have of a more versatile clipping tool with a lower limit would be the possibility that I would end up wasting time chasing links that may have been clipped out of context. No matter how you slice it I love what is happening here, and will doubtless adjust. Thanks for the great site! 2000 character limit or 1000 character limit, The primary thing to remember is. That clipmarks will continue to provide a excellent service for the price. Also Never underestimate the power of the user to find ways to use your product that you never thought of or intended  I hate the pop limit. If it's a legal thing - Clipmarks is worried about sites complaining about content stealing - then fine. Whatever it takes I guess... But the idea that a shorter clip is a better clip? I like Eric too much to put a word to it. There are instances when such a relatively small limit will cause problems. For example: there are lots of articles out there that list "Top 10" items and such. Most of these wouldn't make the cut because they'd be heavily truncated and ruin the appeal for the average Cliperzen. I consciously attempt to make my clips as concise as possible. So a little judicious clippage can make a clip more readable. However, if you're going to take something away by limiting the size of the clip, then at least give us something in return, like editorial access, so that we can prune an article and strip out the excess verbiage to make the clip as compact and poppable as possible. By the way: your clip is over 1,500 characters long.  I think we need more to the pop limit. It should be 2500 or 3000. If you did reduce it, we would have to put stuff into parts! That is so not fun. Just wanted to repeat what i posted earlier for anyone first coming to this clip. I'm convinced that the pop limit should not be reduced and that a more flexible clipping tool needs to be developed that makes it easier to clip select sentences within paragraphs. We're working on that starting today. Eric, Thank you for listening to all the comments. Most are great ideas for you to work with. I try to keep my clips short. Would like to clip key sentences. I haven't found the orange box character counter yet..was going to suggest a counter. Also, numbering the comments would help me find where I left off reading a clip's comments. Socratoad--I'm now wondering what exciting pieces you haven't shared with us ...  I'm hooked...I read articles and find sites with all of you in mind....how and what to clip to keep you interested. I've found "my home" on the Internet thanks to all of you. We are kindred spirits. Happy New Year and Happy Clipping! This clip and the dozens of comments attached to it, show once more how a great community Clipmarks is, both with its founder/executives and users. It gives a perfect example of how things are worked out here collectively, reasonably, respectfully and friendly, in a flexible and smooth way. I didn't add any comments about clip limits, because either decision would be okay for me, since it would come out of Clipmarks community with a concensus. I think we should save and keep this clip as a great forum and dialogue example. Thanks Eric and thanks all fellow clippers. For showing the online world "we are different than other communities." I agree with jklugman and GDs early comments. If you are getting pressured (or feel that you might soon) then it makes sense. Otherwise I disagree. It makes sense myself I am just starting to use Clips and if one of the clips seems too long I go on to the next. Although there are articles out there that exceed the limit due to having suggestions which could be interesting such as you have the reason then you have your suggestions or decisions such as a thru z or 1 thru whatever. Just want to add a couple more thoughts. First, big thanks, Eric, for not going with the reduction. Second, I'd just like to point out that when someone asks for the opinion of others it is usually out of a genuine interest and desire for honest, straight forward response. I think that because Clipmarks, and all the boys at Big Clip are so beloved, some are reticent to be frank and instead hem and haw and offer flattery. I know that peronally, these are not the sort of responses that I'm looking for when seeking feedback that will help me make a difficult decision. So I'm just suggesting that next time simple frank responses of unadorned opinion are offered and by more participants.... I'm late to the party but wanted to vote. I very much agree with gingembre's, jklugman's & Mr. Daniel's comments on this.Thanks for kicking the reduction. I'd also like to add that I really want non popable clips to show up in the custom tab. Has that been fixed yet? (I addressed this on Travis's clip too). I've asked for this a number of times, as well as having All Clips as the default setting on the New Clips tab. You really have to go out of your way to find unpoppable clips as things are now. I really wish that our PRIVATE unpoppable clips showed up in the custom tab when one goes to "My Clips". With all due respect to bignosemousie and Godfrey Daniel, I am not too upset about the public unpoppable clips not showing up, I think it's just part of the deal of showing respect to content providers. I don't get the notion of dissing content providers. If there were no link to the source, that would be disrespectful. As you may have noticed, it is a major annoyance to me when art work, for instance, is posted without citation. If I am impressed with a clipped full piece I am almost certainly going to check the source for more such. I have yet to see any uproar from anyone regarding this. On the contrary, I think most are flattered and thankful. I think content providers assume that if you provide an excerpt and a link back to the original content, they are going to get more hits than if you reproduced the entire work (even if you linked back to the original content). It seems a reasonable assumption to me. And, as you are quite aware, there is at least one person getting upset because his entire article was clipped. I know one well-known blogger (Jeralyn at TalkLeft) is also sensitive about people who reproduce her posts in full, although she has never mentioned Clipmarks specifically. Wow, I had completely forgotten about that, but that further illustrates the point that I was making. Were the attitudes expressed by this very small number of people, over a year's time held by even a sizable minority of people, I, and we, wouldn't have been able to forget. The issue would be front and center and everywhere. I agree that rules must be found maybe you can limit the "clipping", technically! Yet it's a mine, and I really enjoy all the clips, once you spot people who share your views, it's a great tool! Thanks, Eric. I find myself liking and respecting this site and it's creator(s?) more and more. I'm looking forward to the new clipping tool. I think content providers assume that if you provide an excerpt and a link back to the original content, they are going to get more hits than if you reproduced the entire work (even if you linked back to the original content). It seems a reasonable assumption to me.100% my opinion. I totally agree. If the clip is too long, it becomes tedious to go through more than say, a dozen. It gets out of hand. If the clip is too long then I humbly suggest that you move along to a tiny blurb more suited to those with A.D.D. I cant say it better than Invictus.. so yes , and well done, the very fact of this discussion taking place makes CM the wonderful place it is. still, keep the 2000, and yes a more flexible clipping tool should be developed. and for my 2cents: if you can Eric and Co, develop an internal search engine which will automatically know if a clip has already been clipped by someone else. saves time & energy cheers The pop isn't the issue, Many people like small clips. Depending on the type of page maker a site uses If open and close paragrahs are only used at the beginning and end of a large text segment you can't sub clip. It is actually cleaner code to eliminate the multiple divisions & paragraphs & spans which make pages more clippable. Many sites only let you clip the title. For full sites rather than just a blog entry the dag on description of a good site sometimes deserves 1000 characters just for you to get an idea why you should add a site to your regulars. As long as I can still clip my full pages that I wrote so I can put them together in a feed on a single site, reducing the pop l... I agree with a lower limit. Have of the "popability" of a clit rests -I believe- in the title. The other half in the content. If it's good, then you can pop it up and, if need be, go to the full article. I believe it takes somewhere between 25 and 40 readers to get, in average, a pop. If your title is not good, you don't attract enough readers, if the content is not interesting, same thing. If it's too long, it is no longer a clip but a summary. kwonso said... "If it's too long, it is no longer a clip but a summary."I totally agree and that is my concern. Another thing that doesn't attract a pop (or an attention) IMHO is people posting without an avatar or picture under their name. I personally think it helps a lot to distinguish and stand out. develop an internal search engine which will automatically know if a clip has already been clipped by someone else.Hmmm. That's some kind of impossible because "clipping" means fragemental saving of interesting parts of webpages. There can be a lot of different Clips for one Source so I don't think that this would be possible. And imho it's the big advantage of Clipmarks, compared to others like digg. But I still miss my "1st popped" tab... That was very usefull! Arifsali, i totally agree with you about the profile picture. For me, it shows an investment of time and interest in the site that makes me more inclined to want to see what someone has clipped. I agree with that, too. Some without avatar or picture have led me to sites I'd rather stay away from, if you know what I mean. I love this site. Great job, guys. I'm addicted. Whew! Long.... reading. LOL Whelp, the bookchick wants to add her '6 sense.' First, I'd miss the recipe clips. (jez kiddin'). I had a thought.... it may fall in line with what one other clipper stated. What if... any clip that falls over the 2000 limit (or 1000 should it ever be the rule at some point), is automatically posted / saved by Clipmarks technology as a private clip. This would mean that the clipper has a choice. Clip short or clip private. Just a confirmation.... I have always wished there was more flexibility in the clipper tool so I'm pleased to hear that this might be worked out. And I do agree that clip and summary are 2 different things. Both of which we are all... Why don't you just have a tab that sorts clips by size? How hard is that? Is that a doable thing? If it's clipped private it won't show up on the rss feed for the people who want that feed. Plus if my clips are all private there would be no point of sending the clipmark to a bookmarking service , because then anyone who followed those links back here could not read the clip anyway. even though I clip for myself, my tagging and descriptions are for other people. Likewise my posting clipmarks and clip rolls are meaningless if I am forced to make things private. I have put clip rolls in over 20 spots on the net. If they want to change the popping rules fine. but if the whole servic... HAPPY BIRTHDAY MR. CLIPMARKS!!!!!!!! HOPE YOU HAD A GREAT DAY. LOVE KAREN Yeah dude, happy B-Day. Hope all is well and happy new year. @GD I thought it was interesting that some who said that they rarely read the clip itself, but rather went straight to the source, were in favor of clip size reduction. In other words, "This won't effect me, but I'm for limiting the options of others".A very wrong assumption of you GD. I actually support a larger or even no clip size limitations at all. I often skip the clip and go straight to the source for the very fact, that the clips are too small and risk being non-contextual. @GD again. I actually try very hard to keep the context of my clips intact for the very fact that I'm taking care to give the people who DO only read the clips to get a fair shot at assessing what the article was in fact about, if THEY don't want to read the whole article. I just happen to want to get the whole story. Do not assume, that I don't consider other clippers for a moment, thank you very much! I agree---the link is there if you want more information---although you have to click on a link, wait for the page to load and then read it (OH, POOR THING) is what the internet is about not clipmarks---clipmarks is just that clips of information marked for interest!!! I am new to clipmark and like it a lot. Actually, I see CM as a treasure safe, a place to hold that piece of wow article to conserve it, which in other situations might get deleted or burred within thousands of links and ranked bottom within the search engines. I like more space and reducing the current 2k limit is just unfair. PeaceWatcher, there is absolutely no limit for clips. You can save everything you want and you can still make it public. And nobody would like to reduce the 2k limit, we are talking about expanding it or not limiting. But as I mentioned before. I think the way it is handled right now is the best way. I would like to add a comment/ suggestion regarding the clipping limit. It would make somewhat of a difference if there were some way for the clipper to know when s/he has reached the poppable limit (before s/he has posted the clip). That is about the only thing that I feel would improve this unique tool. I absolutely LOVE everything else about it! Thank you! i found the 2k clip sometimes not enough for a long article. A 1k clip would be challenging but interesting. There are readers who like read the concise long list and then there are those who like the tinyclips. my suggestion is the halfway point, 1.5k. (small change at a time) and so we can adapt our clipping and journalistic skills. everything is possible with practice. Afterall, we do have the option to click the link if we wanted to read the whole (unclipped) article. But i must say that to be concise and accurate (not out of context) i have to read the original article more than a few times. egoldstein, how about creating "tinyclips" or "wiiclips", as a spin-off of Clipmarks. ... Eric, Regarding your clip within a clip. I've always been a post-it, underliner, highlighter, mark in the margin & everywhere else kind of guy & have even used lines going diagonally & vertically to connect thoughts in paragraphs. I think it would be great to be able to edit a clip with......to indicate there are other words but not perhaps necessary to the thought you were clipping. I also think it would be cool to be able to notate in the margin of a clip/under a word(A pop-up window maybe). I've had many people who've borrowed one of my books tell me how they enjoyed my notes & me the same when I've borrowed others. It might be part of a users preference when reading/posting. Anyway thank for the site! |
View the Top Clips from December 26, 2006
|
||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|||||||||||
