I arranged the book in roughly the order I expect most people approach the subject, first explaining what weblogs are and why anyone would want to read or maintain one, and then moving through more practical considerations: how to choose a tool to update your site, how to make your weblog stand out, and how to attract an audience.
I answer commonly asked questions about weblog etiquette, explain what you need to know about living online, and give you some suggestions for dealing with burn-out. In short, I've done my best to get everything I know about maintaining a weblog — any kind of weblog — onto the page so that you can benefit from my experience.
I also tried to place weblogs into a larger cultural and media context. In doing so, I explore the weblog's relationship to journalism, discuss the cultural context from which weblogs emerged, and examine the ways in which the community defined itself. MOT, T. Walker and Associates, Inc. Dilwyn P. Jones, Ph. The Web Handling Handbook is a comprehensive guide to all technical aspects of handling or processing thin flexible materials written for anyone working with webs and web processes.
This engineering handbook is the first of its kind to comprehensively describe and discuss the wide range of technical aspects related to handling webs, which include paper, plastic films, foils, nonwovens, rubber, tissue, textiles and more. The book illustrates applied engineering principles and provides easy-to-understand calculations that inform how web systems are designed, maintained and operated.
The handbook is meant to help readers to troubleshoot and correct defects such as wrinkles, bagginess, curl, and misshapen wound rolls. Written by foremost experts in web handling, this volume explains how to achieve the goal of moving the web optimally through web-to-roll manufacturing, as well as roll-to-roll and roll-to-sheet converting operations.
Mark A. This is a very comprehensive handbook covering web handling processes and is tremendously helpful for those working in the converting industry, as well as researchers in academia working in web related processes. Those in industry, including process engineers, technicians, operators, maintenance professionals and equipment designers and its builders and those in academia, including instructors, students, and experimental technicians, will reap great benefits from this handbook.
The book provides an understanding of the basics as well as detailed applications in web processes. The content is presented all the way from a materials basics chapter to coverage of process units associated with web process lines.
This handbook incorporates both the engineering science of the web handling process and the practical knowledge accumulated by years working in manufacturing operations, thus providing a uniquely valuable handbook. Excellent pictorial figures support the text and illustrate complicated web handling issues.
If you later decide you were wrong about something, make a note of it and move on. I make a point never to post anything I am not willing to stand behind even if I later disagree.
I work to be thoughtful and accurate, no matter how angry or excited I am about a particular topic. If I change my opinion in a day or two, I just note the change. If I need to apologize for something I've said, I do so. If you discover that you have posted erroneous information, you must note this publicly on your weblog.
Deleting the offending entry will do nothing to correct the misinformation your readers have already absorbed.
Taking the additional step of adding a correction to the original entry will ensure that Google broadcasts accurate information into the future. The only exception to this rule is when you inadvertently reveal personal information about someone else. If you discover that you have violated a confidence or made an acquaintance uncomfortable by mentioning him, it is only fair to remove the offending entry altogether, but note that you have done so.
Most webloggers are quite transparent about their jobs and professional interests. It is the computer programmer's expertise that gives her commentary special weight when she analyzes a magazine article about the merits of the latest operating system. Since weblog audiences are built on trust, it is to every weblogger's benefit to disclose any monetary or other potentially conflicting interests when appropriate.
An entrepreneur may have special insight into the effect of a proposed Senate bill or a business merger; if she stands to benefit directly from the outcome of any event, she should note that in her comments. A weblogger, impressed with a service or product, should note that she holds stock in the company every time she promotes the service on her page.
Even the weblogger who receives a CD for review should note that fact; her readers can decide for themselves whether her favorable review is based on her taste or on her desire to continue to receive free CDs. Quickly note any potential conflict of interest and then say your piece; your readers will have all the information they need to assess your commentary.
When a serious article comes from a highly biased or questionable source, the weblogger has a responsibility to clearly note the nature of the site on which it was found. In their foraging, webloggers occasionally find interesting, well-written articles on sites that are maintained by highly biased organizations or by seemingly fanatical individuals. Readers need to know whether an article on the medical ramifications of first trimester abortion comes from a site that is pro-life, pro-choice, or strongly opposed to medical intervention of all kinds.
A thoughtful summation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be worth reading whether it is written by a member of the PLO or a Zionist — but readers have the right to be alerted to the source. It is reasonable to expect that expert foragers have the knowledge and motivation to assess the nature of these sources; it is not reasonable to assume that all readers do. Readers depend on weblogs, to some extent, for guidance in navigating the Web. To present an article from a source that is a little nutty or has a strong agenda is fine; not to acknowledge the nature of that source is unethical, since readers don't have the information they need to fully evaluate the article's merits.
If you are afraid that your readers will discount the article entirely based on its context, consider why you are linking it at all.
If you strongly feel the piece has merit, say why and let it stand on its own, but be clear about its source. Your readers may cease to trust you if they discover even once that you disguised — or didn't make clear — the source of an article they might have evaluated differently had they been given all the facts. Though our thinking diverges greatly, his ideas were one springboard for my own thoughts on the matter.
Referenced and related URLs. Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, For the rest of us, I believe the following standards are sufficient: 1. Publish as fact only that which you believe to be true. If material exists online, link to it when you reference it.
Publicly correct any misinformation. Write each entry as if it could not be changed; add to, but do not rewrite or delete, any entry.
0コメント