http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspxSuddenly I have an image of the blogosphere as a giant American Idol audition to which we tune in regularly to see some ridiculous, some middling and some excellent performances and watch the more popular performers rise to the top and become professionals....en-USCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60608.1)http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#48820Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:54:33 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:48820Paul, Alamo, CAThe problem with the tagging survey is that they did not ask if people wanted to tag or were forced to. When you use a lot of these sites, they make you select a tag. That does not make it popular, just required. If they asked how many people enter passwords (or let their browser do it), it would not show how popular they are with users, just how common they are. The problem with tags for most people is that they do not know how to categorize things well, and communities do not agree on tags, so you get some really wacky tags. Some people mis-tag on purpose to force more views, etc. In any case, they are here to stay for now, since no one wanting to "pitch" a Web2.0 site would exclude them, whether they made sense or not.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#48858Sat, 03 Feb 2007 02:46:46 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:48858Summer, Seattle, WAThat wiki-novel just seems like an uber-mad libs to me! It makes NO sense! But it's still pretty entertaining :)http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#48921Sat, 03 Feb 2007 06:07:00 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:48921Will FemiaPaul, that's right, YouTube requires at least one tag. With Flickr I tag with general location and subject matter, but after that it's guessing. Sometimes I'll tag it with the dominant color. Meanwhile, I've definitely figured out that the more tags and pools you add, the more traffic your Flickr photos get, so I see some people with lists of totally irrelevant tags and pools just to draw eyeballs.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#49077Sat, 03 Feb 2007 20:42:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:49077John in CincyI read about the woman losing her hands and feet a while ago from other sources. Apparently, the hospital is legally not allowed to give out that information under HIPA (the Health Information Protection Act) so the hospital's lawyer wasn't telling the woman to pound salt, he was actually explaining the only way they could legally release that information. On the other hand, by citing HIPA, the obvious implication is that the woman got the infection from another patient. Regardless, the hospital seems to be in serious hot water.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#49650Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:31:26 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:49650Andrew Chrzanowski, Dover, DECar Bomb is such a phenomenal band. Go pick up their album on Relapse Records, it slays.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#49662Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:43:57 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:49662Make Your NutThe real deal about the woman losing her hands and feet (from what I can tell) is that she didn't go into the hospital to give birth and whoops, where'd my limbs go? Rather, she went in, gave birth, developed a strep infection, and a short while later was faced with the decision to amputate or risk almost-certain death from the infection. The problem with the the way this is being reported on most of the blogs is that it is easier to blurb out "Went in for birthing, whoops where's my limbs?" than to present the more detailed timeline of the story, which makes more sense but is less interesting.http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#49769Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:42:45 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:49769EliseSerious hot water? what a poor expression, her whole life is gone! As a woman whose had a c-section I can tell you that you go in there and put your life and your child's life in their hands and have no control over what goes on. The fact that they won't even give her an explanation is beyond horrible. This was the equivelant to being raped and worse!http://clicked.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/02/48730.aspx#49879Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:23:16 GMT8a5d2dbc-a0e4-4c7a-979f-3188051f228e:49879Patrick MooreThe "Concumerist" Thing was Interesting, with one glaring error: "Activating Your Own Phone With A Cell Phone Company: You can buy a used phone, or an unlocked phone, for full price and avoid signing a contract. Why They Hate It: Cell phone companies want you to sign a contract. They need you to sign a contract. They burn with desire for you to be under contract with them. Cell phone stores sell 2 year contracts. That's what they sell. Not phones. So get a phone, then call the cell phone company and activate it. No contract needed. They hate that so much." There is no such thing as "NO CONTRACT NEEDED" with Verizon, Cingular/AT&T, Sprint/NEXTEL. All of these companies require a contract for service. Also, "You can buy a used phone, or an unlocked phone..." Cellular retailers LOVE this - it is pure profit for the retailer. Most phones cost $300-$400, but the phone company gives you a huge subsidy on the phone itself because they are banking on your monthly service fee (NONE of the big companies will activate you on a month-to-month basis without a contract, only the MVNO's will do that and they aren't worth it). If you activate your own phone, the is no equipment to underwrite for the retailer, therefore your contract is pure profit for the phone company.