This morning I logged into the new iranian.com and noticed our old friend Hajiagha is free! I also noticed many other blocked users are free again. I sensed as if the Evin prison has been broken into and the prisoners liberated!
Now as we all know Mr. Javid was a great promoter of the political prisoners in Iran and was so vocal about democracy and human rights by posting all kinds of contents related to these issues and he even littered the American National Parks last summer by writing "democracy" and stuff like that in Farsi with broken pieces of wood and what have you!
However, in the end when he lost control of the old i.com many of those he imprisoned are now free! Despite the fact that many of them were talented and long time contributers, just like our political prisoners in Iran.
I am sure Jahanshah will disgree with me and many of you do too and I hope you register your feelings one way or another to activate the robotic programs!
In the end not only Jahanshah ended up playing the role of the Evin jail keeper but all of us lost something of value. We lost the organized and meticulously detailed content organization of the old i.com which was achieved by YEARS and years of user input and customized to the needs of the community. The only thing that it was missing was "comment control" which Jahanshah promised but just like a dictator refused to implement, again all while boasting his freedom and democracy "claims".
That's what happens when you or I or people we know act like stubborn mules and think they're always right. Other than the comment control i.com could've been improved by adding "tabs" like it used to have for blogs, news, music, etc. by adding tabs for surveys, photos, albums or the new things we have here. Or the addition of like and dislike buttons.
I used to think that this new format for both sides may be good but now I think they are SUCKS TO CANADA! They are not for us. There is no "moving on". If anything we're moving to nothing. I hope I am wrong, I hope I am so wrong that we get the old i.com back. But I don't think we will. It's probably lost for ever.
Anyway, you may think I've woken up from the wrong side of the bed this morning but I think what I felt this morning and what I'm saying here is not far off from reality and how Mr. Javid is now perceived and where we've become. At the end of the day it's another example of Iranian bazi and how we couldn't even manage an online magazine. How we screwed up the cyberspace by creating an Online Supreme Leader! Oh well.
Photo caption: the appeals court for Tehran province
Count me as one of those who think you woke up from wrong side of the bed.
Just like the NIAC bashers, if you think you can do a better job, grab one end of this task and show us you are more capable, more talented, a fairer person or have more influence.
Of course with this comment, now you may think I woke up from the wrong side of the bed J
Mehrdad
It's not that I think I can do a better job, it's that JJJ had a good thing going. He couldn't and most likely can't top what he had already done. All he had to do was tweak a little bit before many abandoned ship. Now it's too late.
It's like Reza Shah or his son who had every opportunity to use the constitution and other important "tools" to improve Iran and prevent it from going into the chaos that was Islamic Republic, but they didn't. Same here, it's too late now for a "new i.com".
I just hope I am wrong and only time will tell. Things will get better but how much and how would it compare to the haydays of i.com.
'well deserved'
Last night, I read one of Mr Javid'comment which was a reply to some other commentator regarding the same issue of blocking users at old IC. In it, Mr Javid lump up everybody together(those who got blocked over the years, they must be so many) and call them 'sick' who should belong to hospitals!! and that was ' well deserved'!!
your pic up there reminded me of one simple fact: the regime in Iran has not changed yet(nothing in the horizon either), why the regime should change over here ??
The sad thing is that he didn't have to end up as a Supreme Leader. Unless someone FORCED him to be the single deleter of all comments, he could've given us the authority like he is doing here now.
His IT person at the time assured me publicly on a blog of mine about this very subject that the only reason we didn't have comment control was JJ.
I'd like to give credit for where credit is due and criticism when it is warranted. I guess I'd give the positive things he did at 65% positive and at least 35% negative. He does have the tolerance which is a positive.
I may be wrong but I believe the reason he gave up on the old i.com was because he saw the readership dwindling and he thought he could do better elsewhere with a new platform. Now the 'MOST VIEWED' blog here is his blog about being done with NIAC with 485 views and a letter in response by Sarah Shourd at 477 views to please don't be! Back in the haydays of i.com your run of the mill basic blogs got that few views. I know these views are by actual individuals, not how many times someone come back to post a comment or reply.
EA,
I may be wrong, but as I understand “views” for each contributed piece only shows the number of registered members who read the piece while logged in. The number of hits – or, “reads” in the old IC – might be much larger. Today, I read your blog before logging in. I do not think my reading increased your “views” by one. Now however, I am logged in to post this comment. That should increment your “views”.
I think JJ is aware of the attractive nature of showing the number of hits for the readers, but is now experimenting with the idea of counting “views”. He may change his mind, in future. In fact, one way of encouraging contributors might be to let them – if not the readers - see the number of hits their own contributions have.
Wellwisher one computer one view, you don't have to be registered. If you want to check it out, log out and then go visit any content, use one that is obsolete like 2 or 3 views, check the views before and after you've visited that content without logging in. You'll see that it adds the view count. I just tried it before writing this comment. You need to be registered to write comments or contents or vote on surveys and such.
I like this view much more than the "reads". The new i.com has the same view count. This way we know who actually has the "most viewed" content. The most viewed item on i.com was Omid's cartoon at about 4000+ views next it was my photo of Paula Broadwell and Khatami of about 1800 or so views.
Right now the new i.com is getting a lot more views that iroon and you'd expect that. It's like Islamic Republic having some old American made fighter jets and boasting that it can defeat the Americans! I hope JJJ doesn't go back to the "reads" and try to sell us a VW for a Porsche! I don't think he will, he is Abadani not Esfahani!
My understanding is that the number of views of posts on iroon.com includes those viewers who are not logged in (they are either registered users who are not logged in or are simply non-registered visitors), but if the implementation of this number crunching is correct, it should _try_ to isolate repeat viewers of the post. It is not easy to isolate non-loggedin individuals as there are other parameters to take into consideration when determining the number of _unique_ views. It is possible but it is a tricky proposition. As in any satistical reporting some assumptions must be put in place before the software can begin to count the number of views.
It is best that the number of views be understood as an _indicator_ of the community's interest to, well, view a post. For example, 4000 and something views for a cartoon post. This number of views is not absolute.
Another indication: a post showing a signifincatly high number of views suggests that its link has gone viral _outside_ the site, which, by the way, is a proof that the number of views on iroon.com does include non-loggedin viewers.
Bavafa so you're saying what I'm saying, right? That each view (for the most part, ~99%) is a different person. In the case of the Paula Broadwell photo it went viral onTwitter.
Hi EsfandAashena. Sorry for my late response. I was away. In theory, each view ought to be a unique person, but the design of the Internet is such that this theory could be broken. So, the answer to your question is no. Do not use 99% or any numbet, unless the site publishes some sort of statistics, if they even track enough number of data elements to be able to report this. But one thing seems clear: Each logged-in user will register one view of a post. This means the second time s/he views the post, the number of view for the post should not be incremented, again, asumming the second time the user is still logged in. In conclusion: the number of views per post appears to be fairly _accurate_, but not absolutely _precise_.