I'm surprised you blame us for the way Jeff is perceived. The only thing I think we could have maybe done better is omit the links to his actual replies. In retrospect, that might have been better. Our link text is pretty benign, e.g., "Then, we heard from Jeff."
The story is simple. We offered to save the likes of users who asked us to. Jeff objected, so we didn't. We offered to save the recipe data and make a searchable index. Jeff objected, so we didn't. While we might have been surprised, we complied; we didn't want to ruffle any feathers.
I can only imagine that you either object to the fact that we started the Open Recipes project or that we shared the story behind it. Either way, I'm afraid I just don't care. If there are exactly two people who think we did something wrong here, and lots of people who support what we're doing, then I think we chose wisely.
Also, you can't truthfully claim that anything we're doing is competing with Punchfork. (It was shut down at the end of March, before the Open Recipes project existed.) Not that there's anything wrong with competition.
Your link text is benign, set between accusations and hyperbole. You could have emailed Jeff with context on what you were thinking. You didn't. You tweeted asking him to DM you about a conversation you wanted to have, not him. He told you he was busy. You could have emailed him context then, you didn't. You posted a page publicly saying you planned to save a bunch of the data from his site. He asked you if you were planning to scrape his data and said he thought doing so was uncool. You didn't answer the question. You said you weren't doing anything uncool, which is a matter of opinion, not a clarification of fact, and again acted as though it was his responsibility to pursue clarification from you.
Your approach was wholly unprofessional. The reason it pissed me off is because I know what kind of person Jeff is to those entrepreneurs who approach him professionally, respectful of his time. He is completely approachable, super friendly, and incredibly generous with his time. The reason he wasn't here is because your approach lacked common courtesy and respect. You acted as if he owed it to you to reach out and discuss your project. He doesn't. Then you all but slandered him in your post, paraphrasing him with things like "So long, suckers," which is something that anybody who knows Jeff knows could not be further from his attitude about anything.
I'm glad you came around to respecting Jeff's request. It's too bad you didn't approach the situation as reasonably from the beginning. I get tired of seeing good people have their name tarnished around the community by people whose sense of entitlement leads them to paint a one-sided picture of someone who has worked so hard to contribute to the community, simply because they didn't get what they wanted, how they wanted it.
I don't think having an easily incited mob of trolls supporting your view validates what you've done. I think if you take a step back and look at the situation subjectively, you'd realize you owe Jeff an apology.
Mapalong is still in private beta, but it's otherwise alive and well. It's a huge bummer that you think otherwise. I'm sure you're not alone.
We have had to pause development, but not only is your data still there, you can still use it. New users can't join, but that's about it.
As soon as we're able, we want to finish it and launch it. As part of this, we'll make sure people can get their data out in useful formats. (Perhaps a GeoRSS feed per URL? A KML file per user?)
I genuinely respect you for holding us to a high standard, but I think it's a little unfair to criticize us for an unfinished app.
I'm sorry if you feel it's unfair, but it's hard not to jump to such conclusions when the Twitter account is dead and nothing (visibly) changes.
It would certainly make people feel better if, with slowly progressing software, it was made easier for these testers to feel like they could properly test such software with the full knowledge that they can get their investment out in the form of a reasonable export function - they are after all providing a service to you by testing the software and providing feedback.
It's cool. Like I said, I'm sure you're not alone.
Also, you make a very good point. We never expected to have to pause, but we should have put more focus on making sure people never felt their data was trapped, even in the very beginning.
In fact, you've managed to convince me that proper data export should be the very next feature we add.
It's more complicated than that. The last line has to match two out of three (for example, city and ZIP), and then it can try to do some reverse analysis on what you've written for the address line. (Even that's an oversimplification; it's pretty darn impressive.)
The USPS also has the additional challenge of matching what you think is your address with what is actually your address. Very, very few people know their address.
If that's not bad enough, if you've ever had something arrive successfully, you expect the address that was used to work forever.
The USPS also has the additional challenge of matching what you think is your address with what is actually your address. Very, very few people know their address.
What parts of their addresses do people typically get wrong? Where can one go to find one's actual address?
Here's where you can go to find your actual address:
https://tools.usps.com/go/ZipLookupAction_input
There are, occasionally, errors in the database. I'm trying to get one corrected now. If you find one, go to your local Post Office, find a supervisor, and ask him or her to notify "Address Management".
I didn't mean to short shrift them -- hell I brought it up to praise them.
I've been so impressed before by things like wrong addresses -- hell, one time I saw a letter with no address only my name and zip code. And it's not like I lived in a place where my mail carrier knew me. They've built a hell of a technology there.
From your own page, with options, it can be configured to be more than $101,000. Its likely that they would have a fully loaded demo car, so this is probably right.
IE is not preferring anything in your example. The default quality is 1.0, and since no quality is indicated for any type, they all share the highest preference.
Although IE's Accept header is technically useless, it's more likely to be a response to developers incorrectly parsing Accept than the other way around. This post is about sites using primitive string matching to parse Accept, and it's not unreasonable to imagine that this problem is not new.
You also claim that the spec leaves the resolution between text/html and text/* ambiguous, but it clearly states why text/html has precedence:
"If more than one media range applies to a given type, the most specific reference has precedence."
Lastly, I only get in a huff when people use illogic, especially ad hominems, to prop up a poor argument. In fact, I've written about this, too:
