Amazon, explain

It’s a shame the world’s largest online retailer doesn’t have a department for answering questions about their operation, but you can understand why they don’t. They’d need to employ about a million people to handle e-mails and phone calls asking why they are so stupid in their dealings with customers. It would definitely eat into the profits, and Amazon is all about profits. But sometimes you have to wonder if they’ve thought everything through as thoroughly as they should.

For example, while I’m waiting for the temperature around here to get up to something close to zero Fahrenheit (-18 Celsius) I spend some of the time idly perusing their offerings to see what deals might be had. It’s how I found the Lumix I’m waiting for. It’s also how I found a most curious phenomenon has occurred, one which leaves me baffled. Their unhelpful help department of FAQs doesn’t cover it. Not anywhere. To wit it is this:

Screenshot from 2020-01-12 17:48:20

An item I ordered 2 years ago almost to the day now “requires special handling and cannot be shipped to your selected location”. That’s odd; are these photo frames now nuclear powered or something? Why cannot something I once bought and had shipped here be shipped here? So far as I know none of the area roads have been removed or bombed out. Okay, they are occasionally blocked by landslides and such, but not always.

Odder yet is the large number of other items which can’t be shipped here, which cover quite a range of description and seemingly have nothing in common other than coming from Amazon. (That’s the company, not the place in South America.) The only time I had encountered this before was when I attempted to order some replacement lithium batteries. Now in that instance I can understand why someone might be reluctant to send the merchandise through the mail as the batteries are considered hazardous material. But really I have purchased devices with such batteries via ‘mail order’ before, including through Amazon.

I have yet a fairly good analytical mind, and tried to determine the common denominator behind all the items I came across which they would no longer have shipped here. I failed. It wasn’t size, nor weight, nor material, nor point of origin, nor price. Really no one common factor seemed to cross the multitude of restricted merchandise.

Until for a lark I tried looking at the forbidden items via my wife’s account instead. Suddenly we could have anything we wanted just for the asking (and paying). How could this be, when the accounts are literally identical in every way except for the name?

Oh there is one other difference:

She has Prime.

So is the whole “you can’t buy that” limitation about tricking me into plumping for Prime?

Probably.

But we’ll never know, because Amazon refuses to hire millions of customer reps to deal with all the irate consumers they frustrate with their stupidly run organization.

In the meantime I say “fine: they don’t want to sell to me, I don’t have to buy from them.”

Addendum: if you are wondering why my wife and I have separate accounts using the same card, well it’s just one of those things that happens. We can buy each other presents without a tip-off for one thing (the photo frame is an example in fact), and we don’t clutter up each other’s browsing with items we’re not specifically interested in. Why does she have Prime? I’d say it’s because she buys too much, but that would be a terribly “husband-like” remark.

The Ghost of Aunt Ada

My Aunt Ada was a very interesting woman. Quite a character in fact, although that didn’t make her unusual in our family. I thought of her this week when I was watching prices on things go up inexplicably. Why? Because she used to go to the local flea market and haggle, and yes I would go too and complain about what people were asking. One time she volunteered to walk up and down the rows banging a pan and shouting “People your prices are all too high!” She didn’t actually do it, but it was a close thing.

A couple of posts ago I mentioned two items I’d found that I was interested in buying but felt they were both a tad expensive yet. One of them sold before I’d finished writing that missive, and now the other one has gone up in price by $40. What’s more, a certain new lens I’ve been watching since before Christmas has gone from “$149” to “$129” to “$179” to “$177”, up and down bouncing between the numbers with no rhyme or reason.

It gets worse. I looked at some used laptops and found that people seem to want as much if not more as you can buy comparable units for new. Did they not get the memo? The moment you buy that latest tech its value drops by half and it’s already superseded by a new model. What you paid for it isn’t relative to its worth, which is why you still have it for sale.

Looking on local and national sales sites (E-Bay Canada is just E-Bay USA with extra charges for shipping, exchange rate, import fees, and taxes) for anything you care to mention and you see it’s all nutso pricing. In addition to the previous mentioned products we have people trying to sell $2 Matchbox cars for $20 (or sometimes a lot more), clothing you can get out of you-know-where being priced on-line for 3X retail, and dollar store goods offered as though they are from Harrod’s. Are people really so foolish as to not shop around?

There are those who say I’m the fool for not grabbing those items when I could because when they’re gone they’re gone. I say “so what?” I’ve seen things “go” for more than half a century and know not only is there another opportunity coming, but you didn’t cease to exist just because you didn’t get that whatsit that you managed to live without before you saw it. So I’ll continue to follow the Zen and wait for the planets to align, or whatever, before making my purchases.

But what we really need is the ghost of Aunt Ada walking up and down the metaphorical aisles of on-line selling banging her pan and shouting “People, you have got to lower your prices!”

Speaking of ghosts, here’s ghost cat (a preliminary experimental photo):

ghostcat

Amazother thing

Today we’re going to talk about everyone’s nemesis and nobody’s friend, Amazon. In the words of Gracchus “If a criminal has what you want you do business with him”. Beyond that axiom I can’t think of a single reason for doing business with them. Aside from the complaints of poor working conditions they inflict on employees and the obscene profits made by Mr. Bezos, here are a few of the things I don’t like about how they do business:

1). Sorting. Did you know that if you re-sort search results you sometimes get different results? Not the same results in a different order; different results. Try it and see. This is beyond sense as well as beyond logic. They must figure that if you choose “price: lowest to highest” you’re some kind of cheapskate who should only be offered the poorest quality merchandise. It’s bad enough that no matter how specific the criteria you enter you get results relating to any one or more of the keywords and not the whole, even when using their sidebar categorizations.

Sometimes it is the third-party sellers that are to blame: they like to put their junk under many different categories, related or not, so that they show up no matter what you’re looking for. You never know when someone looking at camera equipment might suddenly decide that what they really need is a new pair of socks.

2). Price-Pong. They play this game two or three different ways. Since we’re never told what the rules are it’s hard for us to understand, much less win. In one version (related to the above complaint about third-party sellers) items are listed with stupidly low prices to get first place in the sorting order, and then the rest of the cost is made up as “shipping charges”. Okay so this item costs $0.01, but the shipping is $19.98. Yeah, I’ll buy that one – instead of the one that’s $14.99 with free shipping. I may have been born at night, but not last night.

Similarly, the price sort may list a higher price first because the listing is by the ‘new’ offer and the sort has been done on a basis of ‘used’ offers. So the $18.99 version of an item shows up before the $15.99 version because someone has a used edition of the first version for $13.99. Did you follow that? No? Good: you’re not supposed to be able to.

Mainly Price-Pong is played by raising or lowering the price of any item you’ve shown any interest in until they find the point where you will buy. This includes taking it down to your “trigger point”, and also sometimes raising it up so you think you’d better grab it before it gets too expensive. What’s really inexplicable is how an item can be $13.66 one day, when not “on sale”, and then suddenly $28.44 the next. Or $9.99 and then $24.67, to quote prices of both the DVDs I was looking at recently. The joke’s on them: instead of buying either, I bought neither. Unlike so many of their customers I do not feel obligated to spend money with them. I suspect part of this is a ploy to justify their over-priced and not very valuable “Prime” service, which would allow you to buy with “free” shipping at any time you think the price is right. Well I don’t need to spend money on that either; I tried it, and it was pretty much worthless. On the whole buying from Amazon is more like stock market speculating than retail purchasing.

3). Here today, gone tomorrow. I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen items offered by the company itself just vanish from availability overnight. This seems a little odd. Usually when something is going off there is some warning; a price reduction commiserate with a clearance for example. In the case of used goods … well if there is only one and it sells that makes sense. You kind of have to wonder about “Only 3 left in stock! More on the way!” as well.

4). It’s ‘Walmart’ spelled with an ‘A’. Always low prices? Well “low” is a relative term, not an absolute like “lowest”. You should keep that in mind when shopping anywhere. Retailers always want you to think they have the lowest prices, when in fact none of them could guarantee such a thing. Not even with “price matching” (which has many caveats allowing them an “out”). If you price clothing at the Big A you can laugh yourself silly. Seriously; nobody buys that obviously low-quality rubbish for those pseudo-designer prices, do they? Would anyone expect the stuff to even fit? I doubt there is such impetuous optimism in the world these days. And woe unto us all if there is.

5). Setting a bad example. Because of what they do, other on-line retailers are doing it too. Everyone wants to be Amazon now, and they include “marketplace seller” listings in with their own. Well if I wanted to buy from some other web site, guess what; I’d go to that web site myself. At least some of them allow you to filter out the non-host listings. Big A doesn’t do that: you have to look at individual listings to see who is offering the item.

6). They should change the name to “Yangtze”. Although the extremely poor translations of the Chinese descriptions on many items are good for a laugh, there is an apparent dearth of goods made anywhere else. Furthermore, listing of country of origin is more than a little bit spotty. There are few things I will side with politicians on, but the over-dependence on Chinese goods is one of them. We should never have let it get this far out of hand, and not for any simplistic, bigoted reason. I certainly don’t agree with certain current efforts to curtail this phenomenon by merely taxing imported goods, as this does nothing to elicit an alternative source. We still need the stuff, and we’ll still buy it. It’s the same stuff, with the same supporting of corrupt and uncaring government with their horrible human rights abuses and abysmal environmental damage, but now it’s more expensive stuff due to ineffective additional tariffs. If we could see where the products came from ourselves perhaps we could make our own choices about whether or not to buy, for our own reasons.

7). Here’s a suggestion for you. At best the suggestions Amazon makes are humourous. Okay, they’re laughable. The ultra-simplistic artificial intelligence seems to have the reasoning of a three-year-old: if you bought a DVD, you must like all DVDs. Subtleties such as “this one is a good movie, that one isn’t” don’t enter into it. True, you can’t really expect them to rate all the movies, but they could build a more accurate assessment of your interests given the large amount of data they collect. Of course that would involve more advanced programming, and hence a further expense.

At worst the suggestions are just a waste of space on the page, or an annoyance in your e-mail. Their grasp of “related items” is as tenuous as their grasp of sorting relevance. Maybe they should just leave off their pretended evaluations and stop wasting time and space with what amount to little more than wild guesses. And yes I admit I look at things I’m not interested in, then delete the items from browsing history, just to mess with their metric. To be fair, I also look at and then delete items I am interested in. I do this usually because the price has gone up before I decide to buy. Too bad for them.

While we’re at it, let’s question the “Amazon’s Choice” designation. Choice based on what? Surely not any objective evaluation of the offering. Most likely another AI analysis indicating something that makes the most profit for the company, either by margin or volume.

8). Now you tell me! Ever look something up on Amazon and think you’ve found a deal, only to be told at the ‘check out’ stage “this item can not be shipped to your location”? Never an explanation as to why, they just ain’t gonna. Okay, so don’t show it to me then. They know where you are, so if they can’t get it there (for whatever unspecified reason) they shouldn’t offer the item to you. Sheesh! You’d think you were trying to mail-order cocaine or something. No, that they’d probably allow.

9). It’s all the same to me. “New for you”, “Recommendations for you”, “Related to items you’ve viewed”, and “Explore more items” amount to identical algorithm analysis output, just redundantly displayed in four locations. Never mind “Recommended items customers often buy again”; I’m just sure that having bought one 55-250mm Canon EF-S lens people naturally go back and buy a dozen more. And while we’re at it …

10). The site is a frigging mess. I consider it a prime (pun intended) example of how not to organize a web site. Superfluous listings, redundant links, illogical organization, and nonsensical categorization. If a digital tornado blew through their servers it could only improve things. True again some of the problem is third-party, but the host sets the rules and can make users keep in line. They simply don’t want to. In a way, every botched listing by a third-party seller is a promo for any more accurate listing by the host itself, so where’s their incentive to correct wrong images or confused descriptions? People listing with Amazon need to understand: they aren’t your friend, they’re your competition.

All these things could be improved on, and indeed they do ask for suggestions on improving things. Although to actually undertake such changes would mean they’d have to spend some of their ill-gotten gains on self-policing, reprogramming, and policy changes. Since we can readily see their over-all attitude is one of “meh, we’re making money anyway” any change is unlikely to happen. Except perhaps for the worse, if they discover a means of upping profits at the expense of degrading service. Heaven forfend anyone should take pride in their work, right? The problem starts at the top: Mr. Bezos’s motto would appear to be “I’m rich; nothing beyond that matters”.

Caveat: everything is subject to change without notice, including the web site and my observations on it.

WordPress is DEAD

UPDATE: They seem to have fixed the “no media access” problem, but it is still running unusably slow.

Well I’ve just wasted a good deal of time attempting to write another blog entry and finding that not only is the site running like molasses in Winter but it won’t let me access my stored media – keeps shutting down the window.

I suppose this is a ploy to get people to pay for it. Nice try. If you want to offer limited services for free, don’t curtail them and then offer to give them back for money. That’s dishonest. I’ve barely touched the allotted storage capacity here and it’s become a struggle to produce even a short entry.

No, it is not my computer or Internet connection: this is the only site acting up at the moment. I’m well-familiar with how these things work and how to tell which part is not working.

Let me know if it ever works again.

Education is a wonderful thing

Yes education is a wonderful thing.

Get some.

I don’t mean the formal bit of paper that declares you’ve achieved at least the minimum passing grade on standardized testing. Those wonderful documents we wave in the air then place in a box as we get on with our lives and the utter necessity of doing what needs to be done so we can eat and sleep indoors.

More the kind of education that allows you to see sentence number two in the previous paragraph before you commit sentence number one in same said paragraph. The practical, pragmatic education of reality that lets you avoid so many mistakes and so much suffering. Too often these are the things we learn to late. Wouldn’t it be nice if they taught them in school to begin with? Instead our high school classes are an exercise in archaic academia and soldier training, and our college courses presume you already know about life and how to deal with it.

I’ve had more than half a century of learning and still regret not entering adulthood armed with useful, practical knowledge of how to cope with it. I literally could have saved years of struggle if I had, and could have sailed more smoothly through the easy times as well.

There’s not much meaning to this diatribe. It’s too late for most of us and nothing is likely to change for the others because the situation has become institutionalized, even though the majority may agree it needs alteration.

In fact what triggered this useless rambling was scanning through blogs where so many people were quickly willing to earnestly offer you what they had learned about … well almost everything. A cursory glance showed none of it was knowledge so much as it was opinion, and that is what passes for facts these days.

We have a saying “you can’t fool a hammer” and few people understand what it means. Basically it means physics is absolute, and just because you truly believe a hammer is a screwdriver doesn’t mean it will work as one. Nor does the philosophical argument that since you can use it as one (pounding the screw with the hammer and thus ‘driving’ it) that makes it so.

On more than one occasion I have used algebra to explain the relationships between multiple variables. That’s what it’s for. I’ve even taught it. On almost every occasion the listener failed to grasp the concept because although they had passed algebra they never understood it. “You don’t need it” is a frequent excuse, and yet there we were; me explaining and them not understanding. It wasn’t as if I was just doing it to be mean; there was something they wanted to understand and they needed algebra to understand it but the education system had failed where it pretended to have succeeded.

Philosophy originally meant “field of study”. It’s where PhD comes from (Philosphy Doctorate). Now the colloquial meaning of random belief supported by flimsy argument and zero facts has overtaken that definition to the point of reversal. We will declare we are PhDs not because we have contributed to the body of knowledge on a particular subject, but because we decide we know about it based not on facts but opinion and rhetorical argument.

I don’t know. I still try to educate people and get told I’m wrong because all I have is facts and data and decades or even centuries of accumulated knowledge to prove my point. Apparently if I had a lot of nonsense and ad hominem attacks to draw on I’d be on firmer ground.

But that, I will admit, is just my opinion. Not the facts.

Remains of the day

Greek find called earliest

Wow. How bad reporting is that, eh? This is the sort of thing that makes scientists look like morons. The “chunk of skull” becomes a “fossil” and then it just gets worse. Business Insider SA and others call it “a 210,000 year-old skull” when it’s just a piece of one. It’s only when you get into the posts from actual scientists that you see the appropriate caution being used:

“As with any challenging new find, the appropriate initial reaction should be healthy scepticism, even when my own name is on the paper.” – Chris Stringer

What’s missing is corroborating evidence, such as more pieces of bone of the same era. Also there is no accounting for other possible explanations for its presence, such as having been moved to the location at a later date. We had this same problem when a ‘black’ skeleton (a few remains of one) was located further North than it should have been; so many people started declaring it factual that Africans had been in Europe much longer than anyone knew and it was absolute proof of the migration.

Really? Since when does science base its conclusions on a sample size of one?

It’s bad enough we keep getting ‘health reports’ that draw absolute conclusions based on some obviously flawed meta-analysis (the most recent one blamed sugar for cancer), misleading people into changing their life without any actual explanation of why they should (and yet they still ignore making changes that have been proved), but here we corrupt science and history – all because ‘journalists’ can not understand what they’re reporting on. Or maybe they don’t care: “news” these days tends to be sensationalist rubbish designed to grab attention rather than inform. The frequent disassociation between headlines and article content is proof enough of that.

Then when someone points out the mistakes and flaws (such as ridiculously small sample size) they get attacked. After all, it was “in the paper” so it must be true. Well ha, ha. That one has never been true ever since someone invented newspapers. Digital media is simply a faster way to spread lies. (And we can all laugh at the fact the biggest complainer about this is himself the biggest abuser.)

Instead we have people claiming vaccines aren’t safe because of falsified studies and rare instances, ignoring the huge body of positive results. We have people drawing cause-effect conclusions based on coincidence with no proven interactive mechanism. We have people reveling not in ignorance, which is a lack of knowledge, but in stupidity – which is the rejection of knowledge. All exacerbated by media reports constructed by those just as foolish and only marginally better-skilled in writing.

How does the world end? Not with a bang but with a whimper.

Amazon isn’t Amazing

You probably use them. Lots of people do. But have you ever subjected your usage to critical analysis? You should. You’ll probably be surprised, but not amazed. And if you have a firm grasp of reality you’ll be disappointed.

Amazon sells a lot of things. Moreover, they offer things for sale by other companies and individuals. This ‘business model’ has proven so successful that other on-line retailers try to imitate it. The degree of success varies; just because it looks like Amazon doesn’t mean it works like Amazon. Not that Amazon works all that well either.

The first failure is with those third party businesses. Amazon doesn’t have much control over them, although they will settle issues on sales negotiated through them and even drop retailers that garner too many complaints. Up to that point there’s a pretty wide range of buying experiences available.

What triggered my writing this missive is this morning’s notification that something I’d ordered had been shipped. Nice. And after only two weeks too. Other recent experiences have been similar, with one item taking nearly a month to show up. Now when we’re talking about buying from someone other than Amazon this isn’t something that can be laid on them. However a couple of my recent orders were “sold and shipped by Amazon”, and they still haven’t arrived either. It’s not like this is the heavy Christmas shipping season.

Now you’re probably going to suggest I go for Amazon Prime, with its promise of no fee two day shipping on most items. Well guess what, I did. It was one thing when they were obviously playing silly buggers and delaying sending over $35 orders with free shipping as a means to entice people to try Prime. I understand that sort of gimmick. Yet some of the items I’ve ordered under those circumstances showed up sooner than expected.

But here there was one item I wanted quickly without handing over nearly as much in shipping as the item itself cost (watch out for those low-price deals which then have massive shipping charges) so I tried Prime on the free trial. Normally that would be incentive for the business to go out of its way and really hustle, to make you think it is worth continuing the service for an extra $80 per year. Well, it obviously isn’t.

The order, “fulfilled by Amazon” and qualifying for Prime, sat for a week before they even figured out when they could ship it. Another order “sold and shipped by Amazon” is presented as “expected to arrive” in a week. And now I note even the “expected arrival time” before ordering is at least a week on anything I look at. That’s not really “free two-day shipping” is it? When it comes to waiting a couple of weeks for something, I’ll go with the free shipping on minimum order of $35. At least there are no false expectations with that.

Now when it comes to making up such orders you have to be careful. Amazon plays silly buggers with prices all the time, as they raise and lower them to see where they can get you to ‘bite’ on an item you’ve shown interest in. They’ll play pennies at this too. You have to be smart enough to say “no” when you see the price go up; delete it from your viewing and let the AI engine start over on analyzing your desires.

Speaking of which, it’s incredibly bad at suggestions isn’t it? This is due to three factors: the brainless simplicity of artificial intelligence, the limited categorization of items (a DVD is a DVD is a DVD), and third party sellers entering their items in as many categories as possible for maximum (albeit at times entirely incorrect) exposure. You just have to laugh. Or pity anyone who falls for it.

Can we take a moment to talk about the more absurd third party sellers? There are some that are quite straight-forward businesses who know their stuff and you can deal with them. There are some that seem to have a massive language, or perhaps intelligence, barrier problem and can’t make a sensible description/price (those are the ones who list their products under every category too). Then there are the ‘scalpers’ or possibly just plain morons who ask quite absurd sums for items without bothering to do any market research as to what others are asking (this is mainly used goods). I’ve seen some brand new items at 20X what I can buy them in a local store for, and some used things which apparently have become instant collectibles sought the world over by fabulously wealthy individuals looking to furnish their mansions. Although why they want a plastic camera for $9,876.32 to sit on the shelf next to the antique Lalique crystal I don’t know. But we have to laugh at something. One of the worst areas for absurd pricing is clothing. Just don’t go there. Never mind the fact you can not tell fit and quality from an on-line catalog and that returns are a major hassle if the item doesn’t work out. With some things it’s best to see before you buy. Most things. Almost everything in fact. Okay, literally everything.

And now back to Prime. There are other ‘bonuses’ included in the Prime package, and some people may even be able to take advantage of them. For me personally they are of no use, starting with my limited Internet service making streaming an expensive adventure in digital hell to offering of things I just plain don’t give a damn about. I wanted it for the shipping advantage, and evaluated for that I’m not sure it’s worth the extra money given how little I buy in a year even if it did work (which it doesn’t). Better to pony up some extra cash on the rare occasion I might want something faster.

But that’s me. Your situation will no doubt be different. Nevertheless you should take a critical look at your Amazon habits and see if you are using it to best advantage, or it is using you. Here’s a hint: if the Prime free shipping is really worth the money per year to you, maybe you have a consumerism problem and are just plain buying too much stuff.

Anyway, step back and take a critical look at it. After all, it’s a jungle out there.

This photography stuff

Where to begin?

A dark, stormy night. A coach, horses gone, plunging through the rickety, useless fence and dropping, tumbling into the gorge below.

No, that’s how Soul Music by Terry Pratchett starts. This isn’t that. But like that we will start at a random point on the timeline, because stories are continuous. In this case we will start in the now, ignore the then, and mention the will be in passing.

I’ve been quite enjoying many of the photography blogs on WordPress. It seems I keep finding new ones to hold my interest at least for a few minutes. Some I’ve actually followed, both for their content and their writing style. Many are given to reports of using old film cameras. I love this. It is a nostalgia trip for me. I find myself think “had one, shot the film” or just reveling in the pure mechanical aspects of picture boxes from long ago.

Some of the articles are about how the writers shoot, what they shoot, what they’re going to shoot. It’s good. In some cases inspiring. In fact the blogs in general have renewed my enthusiasm to the point where I have bought some new equipment to play with and have resurrected some of the old.

Other articles are more easily dismissed as they are of the ‘instructions for beginners’ type. Now it’s true I could probably write the same and expand on them, so I obviously don’t need to read them. But the great part is someone is writing them; encouraging the next generation of photographers. And hopefully someone is reading them.

There are even people out there writing about using pinhole cameras! Oh boy! The original camera, as it were.

I notice a refreshing lack of condescending attitude as well. None of the “this is the way to do it” rubbish, but plenty of the “this is the way I do it” information. How well I remember the film days when the snobs would insist if you didn’t have the ‘right’ camera you couldn’t take good pictures. Pshaw!

So encouraged, I pulled out my old DX3900:

DSCN1421

It has some wonderful features, such as a viewfinder – that zooms when you zoom. There’s a tiny LCD screen in the back for a few menu functions, and a refreshing lack of special features and in-camera effects. The 64 MB (that’s megabytes, not gigabytes) memory card currently has 89 pictures on it using up 28 megabytes – less than half. Here’s the original Kodak 8 MB card next to a new Kingston 32 GB SD card. How things have changed, eh?

DSCN1423

That’s an four thousand fold difference!

Here’s one of the old photos taken back when it was my main camera:

DCP_0228

The standard resolution is 2160 x 1440, but as usual I’ve shrunk it down to 640 x 427 to use up less data. I’ve done the same with this new photo I took with it just the other day:

DCP_0271

Unfortunately I found the camera eats batteries. As in two brand new AA cells got the images downloaded and two pictures shot, the next two managed five pics before they were depleted. That’s when I remembered it had developed quite a healthy appetite way back when. It’s even worse now. Too bad, because there are many things I like about this 3 MP point-n-shoot, like its utter simplicity. Nothing offered today comes close. Oh well.

Another experiment came from looking at such new cameras and finding one that takes 49 mm filters, which is the same as my old Takumar lens on the Pentax. So I dug out the Spotmatic 1000 and found I still have most of the equipment:

DSCN1415

Missing and now no longer with us are the bellows, slide copier, and spare bodies (Pentax H2 and Yashica J5). All were lost in the Great Disaster of ’18.

But I played around with the filters, manually holding them in front of the P610 for a couple of shots to see what effect it would have and how the digital camera would handle it. I was encouraged by the results, and as such ordered some more suitable filters and an adapter which will, I hope, work on the Nikon (strictly speaking it isn’t meant to take filters – but that’s never stopped me before). I have a few shots in mind already – some images that I wasn’t entirely satisfied with which the use of filters may be just the thing to bring up to snuff.

I’m still debating buying another point-n-shoot because, alas, the old Kodak V1003 is losing its screen image. Fading something awful, it is. Pity it doesn’t have a nice clear glass finder like the DX3900. But this is a case of weighing “need” and “probable use” against cost and so far cost is too high to balance need and use.

I expect camera manufacturers will be shying away from the simpler form of camera because of the prevalence of smart phones and their ever-improving built-in cameras. For those who think these are ideal, let me warn you about an age-old problem called “putting all your eggs in one basket”: we have always found that combined equipment suffers from the inevitable problem of when one aspect of it breaks the whole thing becomes useless. This is the reason for things like component stereos. Ah, I forgot: everyone uses their smart phone as an Mp3 player now, don’t they? đŸ˜‰

Well this started out in one place and wandered around quite a bit, didn’t it? So I’ll just add some links to some of the camera blogs I like and call it a day.

35hunter

John’s Cameras

Jim Grey, Down the Road

Thegashaus Vintage Cameras

Shifting Sands of Time

Lately I’ve been spending a lot less time on Facebook, on purpose. It was a good idea when it began, but blunder after blunder in its operation and updating has turned it into a cringe-worthy mess of a social media website. Since I’m retired and not all that healthy, I do spend a lot of time on-line. Or at least with the computer fired up and the browser open, which isn’t exactly the same thing. So instead of the mind-numbing horror that is Farcebook I have been perusing WordPress more, and using it more.

At first I was seeking commiseration with my health problems among those with similar trouble. But I stumbled on a few interesting photography blogs and have since been wading waist-deep in them. I suppose this is psychologically beneficial in that it’s something positive to focus on (the fun of photography) rather than something negative (the health troubles). Although there is some negativity in that I don’t get to indulge in photography as much as I want either.

That being as it may, the over-all effect is good I think. I will write more about my own efforts with cameras, put up some samples to show I’m not just whistling Dixie, and try not to drown myself in the inevitable melancholy of my age vs. the younger generation. (Generally I’m pleased to find younger people interested in the subject and trying their hand at it, but sometimes the relevant facts of chronology hit me like a brick to the back of the head.)

I won’t be going full-bore photo here, as that is for those who pursue with passion and I’m just an old guy who still messes about with pictures for his own amusement rather than with any delusional aspirations of grandeur.

There’s probably no real point to this post (I have a tendency to lose the thread of what I’m talking about; a minor flaw of working on one’s seventh decade) other than to warn people of things to come. Anyway, it amuses me.

And now a word to our sponsors

Shut up.

Okay, that’s two words. And I’m about to add a lot more.

If we take it as a given that the purpose of advertising is to attract customers and get them to buy the product, is it not logical to assume that annoying customers is a bad thing to do? There are many ways to annoy customers; the content of the ad itself is chief among them. But the Internet has given us a much more powerful way to drive away business: the pop-up ad. It’s not limited to just the little block ads either. Perhaps a more accurate term would be the “in-your-face” ad.

When you click a link to read something on a page we want to read what we went looking for. We do not want to see the screen suddenly pirated by another display that insists … well, something. I don’t know exactly what it’s trying to do because there’s nothing that makes me click ‘X’ faster than some smart ass interrupting my endeavors.

It’s bad enough that news articles are accompanied by side bars with annoying attention-grabbing flashes and even automatic video (another horror story), but do you have to interrupt the text paragraph by paragraph with not only links to ‘related’ stories (better left to the end of the current reading) but also promotions for things which it is unlikely anyone will look at merely because you did stick it in the middle of the read. This is not the way to engage your audience: it is the way to drive them away.

“Uh-oh! Looks like you’ve got an ad blocker!” Well no kidding, idiots. That is because your ads are so damn annoying no one wants to see them. Really people do not mind advertisements if they are presented in an acceptable fashion. “HEY STOP WHAT YOU’RE DOING AND BUY THIS CRAP NOW!” is not an acceptable fashion.

Facebook is the champion example of how not to do things, with their ‘sponsored posts’ shoved into your news feed. It’s spam, that’s all. Why do you think FB Purity is so successful? Because Facebook hasn’t got a clue as to how to avoid pissing people off. They seem to take perverse delight in it, and rework their script every so often to circumvent the latest efforts at stopping this nonsense. If their advertisers ever wake up to the fact half of Facebook users don’t exist and the other half don’t look at the ads that company is going to have a sudden problem in the income department. Frankly, they deserve to go bankrupt because they have so horribly and commercially bastardized what is basically a good idea (sort of like what happened to any holiday you care to mention.) And when it comes to FB’s claim of “targeted” advertising, have you ever seen an ad that actually interested you? Probably not, because their analysis algorithms seemed to have been created by elementary school children who can’t even get the hang of the concept of a single selection criterion, never mind the plural form. In fact the businesses are paying for “targeted” ads and getting generic random-hit probability instead. For this they pay a premium.

Some bright spots have even come up with a method of making auto-run videos that so far no browser setting or extension can prevent from happening. Not all of us have unlimited data to waste on your not-at-all-important message. And the rest of us don’t want to be interrupted in what we’re doing anyway. Seriously; put your videos where the sun does not shine upon them.

It didn’t used to be like this, of course. In the simpler, better days of the Internet ads came in fixed blocks like ‘banner ads’ that sat quietly at the top and/or bottom of the page until the viewer looked at them. The technology now allows people to be forced to look, whether they want to or not. Net result: one less potential customer for every intrusive ad displayed. The exact opposite of what you’re trying to achieve.

I am reminded of an election for mayor in a town I used to live in a few years ago. The candidate who won was the person with the fewest campaign signs cluttering up the countryside.

Food for thought.