If you’ve been following my Twitter account, you might have noticed some new Post.ly links, pictures of cute animals, and even a photostream of the Congressional Roundtable I attended yesterday.
That’s because I have set up a new, complementary blog to BenParr.com, powered by Posterous, a YCombinator-funded company. The purpose of the Posterous blog is primarily to share photos and the little gems that I find on the web.
It’s a more lighthearted blog – thus why I am going to consistently post pictures of cute animals to lighten your day. But when I am on the go, I will use it over TwitPic or YFrog to share what I am doing or who I am meeting with. I hope it better organizes what I’m doing and gives me a new avenue to share the best things I find on the web.
BenParr.com will still be my primary blog. I will continue to post my insights, my interviews, and my projects on this blog. I will post commentary that I don’t place on Mashable here. In fact, you will soon see an increase in blog posts on BenParr.com due to a new project/experiment I’m hoping to announce this week.
If you’re interested in keeping up my Posterous posts/photos, you can subscribe here. I also suggest subscribing to BenParr.com because there’s a lot of new and useful content coming soon.
– Ben
Posterous rocks. Period. 🙂
Posterous rocks. Period. 🙂
hi Ben,
Good luck with your posterous experiment!
I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn't sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I'd ask a question here, if you don't mind…
In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:
“It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results.”
What do you mean by “keyword strings” and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about “strings” on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted “strings” more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.
hi Ben,
Good luck with your posterous experiment!
I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn’t sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I’d ask a question here, if you don’t mind…
In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:
“It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results.”
What do you mean by “keyword strings” and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about “strings” on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted “strings” more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.
hi Ben,
Good luck with your posterous experiment!
I saw your article [Google Caffeine: A Detailed Test of the New Google] on Mashable with almost 100 comments, and wasn't sure if you were still responding there, so I thought I'd ask a question here, if you don't mind…
In the article about the new Google (Caffeine) you wrote:
“It has more reliance on keyword strings to produce better results.”
What do you mean by “keyword strings” and how does it handle them differently? Are you talking about “strings” on the webpage or in the links to the page? I thought google already focused on keywords, and already counted “strings” more than unconnected words on a page. Can you give an example? Thanks! Steve BTW, great article.