We got an anonymous email today, consisting of two parts. Part one was this:

1. Click on the Traci Skene link and you get a page that reads, “This video is private”. Remove or change the link.

Okay. So far so good. Kinda.

Part two went this way:

2. Clicking on other links takes you away from the Shecky magazine site. Configure your links so they open up on a separate page, leaving the Shecky site open and unchanged.

Ja wohl, mein Kommandant!

What is this all about?

We were taken aback by #2, as you might expect. But we took a deep breath and replied:

1. Be more specific: which “Traci Skene link” are you referring to?

Thanks!

To which our anonymous benefactor replied:

“Performance clips” in the left column:

LOOKING FOR:

Our MOVIES!?!
“Starting Over” (7:49)
“A Man And A Woman” (3:23)
Performance clips?
Brian McKim (5:25)
Traci Skene (6:37)
JFL ’07 Coverage?

By golly, that link took us to the Google/Youtube sign-in page. Hmmm… what the devil? Somehow, over the past few days/weeks/months (?), the “Private” radio button had been checked on the Traci Skene vid. How in blazing hell did that happen? No matter. We changed it back to “Public.”

We immediately dashed off this reply:

Thanks.

As to your second “directive” or “command” (call it what you like), we like the magazine just the way it is.

(And, even if you had phrased it in a polite manner, we’d still keep it the way it is.)

Good day.

Hours later, this was in our inbox:

Dear Brian,

I’m sorry you found my email impolite. It was merely perfunctory, and I, in all good humor, just wanted to point out two problems, albeit minor ones, on your website. The second point–one used by most webmasters in the know–was not critical of your website; quite the contrary, its purpose was to show how to keep people on your fine site without their losing the page if they followed one of the links.

THIS is the impolite email. Your arrogant attitude and inability to take a constructive comment (not even a criticism) is certainly out of line for a writer and editor and publisher, no less for a standup comic. I will continue to enjoy your website and will not email you again, but when I do visit the site, I will now know the kind of person who is behind it.

Huh? What?!

We were somewhat taken stunned by the second graf. What was up with that?

So, we replied:

Excellent!

Arrogant?

Hardly.

We’ve been keeping people on the site for ten years.

Which of my statements was arrogant?

Was it “Good day?”

Was it “We like the magazine just the way it is?”

Was it “We’d still keep it the way it is?”

Long about 2000 or so, folks discovered the Back Button.

It works like a charm and it’s easy to master. Some of the more resourceful of our readers use “Alt + <-" if they're feeling paticularly clever.

You wrote to us in a "perfunctory" manner. (Actually, it was more "domineering" or "dictatorial" or, according to Webster's "arrogant." Hey– what a coincidence!)

We wrote back in good humor– thanking you (how many arrogant people thank their oppressor… and end their missives by saying, "Good day?").

Buy a dictionary and go fuck yourself.

We’ve been at this for ten years. TEN YEARS! That’s about 50 or 60 internet years. When we started the magazine, fewer than 40 million Americans were online. The term “blog” had been coined, but was not in common use. Broadband was virtually unheard of and nearly all of us surfed on 56K modems.

We learned by doing. Trial and error. And we always told our readers if we were having any kind of internet problems– we were up front about any glitches, any calamities. We made a point of sharing some of the learning experience with others. We changed the look and feel and navigation of the site on a regular basis– and the changes always resulted in increased traffic and increased ease of navigation. And in the early, dark ages of the WWW we always gave folks all kinds of advice (IF they asked) on building a site, publicizing it, fixing problems, etc. We even built a site here or there for some folks– sometimes for money, sometimes for free. And we always kept up on the latest developments– even if we hadn’t the intent or the know-how to implement them.

So, if you think you “know what kind of person(s) who is(/are) behind it,” you are making a judgment on insufficient information.

Here’s our favorite part of our correspondence with “Anonymous”:

Your arrogant attitude and inability to take a constructive comment (not even a criticism) is certainly out of line for a writer and editor and publisher, no less for a standup comic.

The Male Half has been in journalism (in one way or another) since high school, so we here at SHECKYmagazine are familiar with what might or might not be “out of line” for a writer or editor or publisher in the traditional (or “legacy”) media. But this is not your father’s newspaper here. We are not a giant publication that has to fret about corporate image. We can politely tell a reader to fuck off and take the consequences. It’s the wild, wild Web, in case you haven’t heard.

So spare us the reprimand about our attitude.

As for our lack of decorum with regard to our standing as comics, we ask: Where did this yahoo get the idea that comics have an ability to take an (unsolicited) comment with grace and aplomb? The writer cannot be a comedian or he/she would know that the fastest way to get an icy stare would be to do this:

After the show, approach the comedian and, without introducing yourself, say the following:

1. That joke you did about the Slap Chop didn’t get a laugh.

2. You smile way too much. Especially after a punchline. Suppress the urge to smile and you will see an increase in the number and duration of your laughs.

And then scurry away.

See how that would be a disastrous and utterly rude thing to do?

Of course, if that happened to us, we’d (probably) respond by saying, “Thanks!” and then we’d mutter through clenched teeth, “What an asshole!”

If sticking to one’s guns in the face of unsolicited (and anonymous) advice is “arrogant,” we are guilty as charged. If refusing to take unsolicited advice while re-affirming our confidence in our methods is “arrogant,” then we must take issue.

And if ending an email with “Good day!” is arrogant, then the late Paul Harvey regularly insulted an audience of 22 million listeners by ending each broadcast that way!

Good day! (Or Fuck you! Whatever works for you!)

ADDENDUM

From an article entitled, The Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 1999 comes the following. (Of course, a lot has changed since May 30, 1999, but some things are timeless.):

1. Breaking or Slowing Down the Back Button
The Back button is the lifeline of the Web user and the second-most used navigation feature (after following hypertext links). Users happily know that they can try anything on the Web and always be saved by a click or two on Back to return them to familiar territory.

Except, of course, for those sites that break Back by committing one of these design sins:

* opening a new browser window (see mistake #2)
* using an immediate redirect: every time the user clicks Back, the browser returns to a page that bounces the user forward to the undesired location
* prevents caching such that the Back navigation requires a fresh trip to the server; all hypertext navigation should be sub-second and this goes double for backtracking

2. Opening New Browser Windows
Opening up new browser windows is like a vacuum cleaner sales person who starts a visit by emptying an ash tray on the customer’s carpet. Don’t pollute my screen with any more windows, thanks (particularly since current operating systems have miserable window management). If I want a new window, I will open it myself!

Designers open new browser windows on the theory that it keeps users on their site. But even disregarding the user-hostile message implied in taking over the user’s machine, the strategy is self-defeating since it disables the Back button which is the normal way users return to previous sites. Users often don’t notice that a new window has opened, especially if they are using a small monitor where the windows are maximized to fill up the screen. So a user who tries to return to the origin will be confused by a grayed out Back button.