I have just sent unsubscribe messages to your server. Your instructions say "If it comes to this it means we have failed you." Hey, don't be upset, I'm only changing my e-mail address. There is no need to throw yourself on the point of your mouse pad. Keep up the great work!
John Bell
------
Greetings and congrats! Your site has been selected as a recipient of this week's Creme de la Creme Awards. We feel that you are providing superior services and products to the internet community and we do appreciate your efforts! The current list of this week's "Creme de la Creme Award" recipients can be found at http://www.uncletai. com/cms/awardsoctober96.html. Congratulations on being recognized in the Creme de la Creme of the Internet. You are in superb company!
Jim Carson
Thanks, guy. - LN
------
Just wanted to tell you, I've been getting Netsurfer for several months now and I really like it! You find some great sites! Especially liked the one for Laurie Anderson. I love the Shocked sites.
Marie Westhaver
In that case, check this out: http://www.shellshock.com/. - LN
------
I've been reading NSD for a while now and I have to say that it's great. Keep up the great work! Anyway, with the article in NSD 02.32 entitled: "Snippy in New Zealand", I think a better title for that article could've been: "Wham, Bam, Trash the Spam". 8-)
Jason Montgomery
You should be writing our headlines.... - LN
------
Just wanted to let you know that I think that your digest is about the best thing on the Web. I always find at least three or four interesting sites to visit and my bookmarks are filled with your suggestions. Great job!
Lisa Martzke
------
I think your digests are the best thing since sliced bread. The succinct and witty - yes, witty - descriptions of the sites are a joy to read. I'd tell you it's the best e-mail I get but I might jinx the investments I just made on the recommendation of Investors GURU and I need the money!
John G. Whyle
------
Whilst the hubby watches the rampaging 11-month-old, I run to the 'puter, turn it on and anxiously await my new issue of NSD. I LOVE this e-zine! No longer do I have to think about what I want to surf for. You guys and gals have done it for me! And after a day of thinking of which cereal to mix, which diaper (cloth or disposable) to use, which toy to step on and nearly kill myself with, etc., I love not having to think - until I read NSD and then I get to think appreciatively! I get to laugh! I get to feel smart because I get your jokes - and none of them are knock-knock jokes! This is great! I like reading your reviews more than the sites, sometimes!
By the way, having just read your letters to the editor, I thought the Heather Has Two Mommies site was great, but I guess I am not hip because I didn't realize it was based on a REAL book! I suppose my child is deprived now....
Anyhow, thanks for a great e-zine, a service really, and keep up the good work.
Brenda Sparks
------
This last issue (NSD 2.32) was great. Keep up the good work. We homeschool and I am always able to find new places to take the kids.
Amy Rowe
------
Just a note to congratulate you on a super issue. I truly appreciate your publication. Thanks for all the good work.
Phyllis Moore
------
I just wanted to take a minute to say thanks for a very useful and enjoyable product. I receive Netsurfer Digest via e-mail and I look forward to each issue. I have recommended you to my friends. You have provided hours of enjoyment and useful links. I have subscribed to numerous products which are available via e-mail and Netsurfer Digest is one of the few which I have decided to keep.
Jim Kelley
------
I'm writing just to let you know how much I enjoy getting NSD every week or so. It is my browser's "home page", to remind me to visit many of the sites you point out. Thanks.
Tim Takacs
------
When I first read the early NSD, I only had limited access to the Net. But it was one hell of an e-zine. It's focus and very low noise make it unbeatable. Web surfing can be boring and tiring on a slow connection, so you want to go to quality sites, but who tells you? One way is word of mouth, but that is unreliable and slow. So the best is Netsurfer. Cheers! I really don't know how to put my appreciation for what you guys are doing. I hope this message gets some of it across to you and your entire team!
Divya Mahajan
------
You all do such a classy job. Please keep it up. Many thanks for your efforts.
R. Huffsmith
------
I am extremely impressed with Netsurfer Digest; you give a smorgasbord of topics (all interesting), a few witty comments, usually just enough information to whet my appetite and then links or home pages so I can investigate further. I look forward to every issue and print it out, since I find many items only on the second or third readings. I sure wish more "zines" would emulate your publication. Many thanks and keep it coming!
winterf
------
Another wonderful edition! I look forward to the Netsurfer Digest; it's always good reading, and there's usually at least a couple of links which I bookmark. Just wanted to express my appreciation.
Chuck Matthews
------
I just wanted to type a few words of thanks. My site, Rent A Geek was mentioned in your most recent issue (NSD 2.35). Rent A Geek operates on a budget of $0.00, I do most of the work myself, and a friend does the programming. The site has plodded along, with reasonable, but by no means spectacular traffic, but mention in your digest has been a Godsend. I have faith in the site, I think that it's worthwhile, and if nothing else, it's fun for me. I firmly believe, though, that the boost in traffic that your article has given us, will mark a new stage in the site's development. So again, thank you very much for mentioning us.
Kathleen Dodge
------
Just a note to thank you for your weekly goodies. I have been receiving your material for over a year now and I find it exciting each time. I work in a steel plant and as a way to try to promote computer literacy, I post Netsurfer Digest on our lunch room bulletin board every week. As time rolls on more people are taking interest. Keep up the good work. Thank you and all the people at Netsurfer Digest for all your time, effort, humour, and dedication. It is very much appreciated.
Leo Wasek
What a great idea. I'm not sure it's entirely legal, but I won't bring that fact to anyone's particular attention. - LN
------
Just a quick note to express my thanks for your efforts. I thoroughly enjoy the publication and look forward to its arrival week after week. I've received more good information on good sites to surf than I receive from any other source and I particularly enjoy the style in which it is written. Also thanks for the jabs at Microsoft.
Reed Lindgren
------
Nice job! I am really enjoying the digest. Your links are great. Especially enjoyed the one that got me to all the newspapers. Keep it up. You are appreciated!
Sharon Shaw
------
Your book review section is great and appreciated. What I think would make it even better would be to add the list price of the book to avoid sticker shock at the register. Anyway keep up the good work. Just love the digest!
Roland Shelton
------
Just FYI, I was unhappy with NSD not being able to unsubscribe (even though it seems I was partially at fault). However, your handling of the situation has been very good. I appreciate that, and will let others know too.
Terry Seal
------
Your cutesy headlines do not tell me what the articles are about. I don't have time to read every one. I'd prefer to go right to an article that would interest me. Frankly, I don't know why you bother listing the contents, since the headlines aren't informative. Anyway, if you ever decide to change your policy, I'd like to reconsider.
Hugh McLeland
It's noted. We try to straddle fun and informative, but perhaps we should swing over a little more. Comments anyone? - LN
------
Sorry guys, but I can't agree with your review of LookSmart in NSD 2.36. What exactly do you mean when you say "the content is thin, confined to the usual big media sites, with many empty menu slots"?
I have been checking LookSmart out on a daily basis since it was first launched over two weeks ago. In addition to finding there's plenty of content (and certainly more than just the big media sites - hell, it even includes Netsurfer Digest) I've come across lots of sites I didn't know about.
As for your saying there is a ban on content involving "tobacco, gambling, pornography, and firearms", I have to ask - do you guys actually look at the sites you review?
Nah, you've blown it big time, fellahs. Makes me wonder about some of the other sites you've written off in the past ...
Alan Smithee
That can't be your real name, can it? Alan Smithee is a pseudonym used by directors who for some reason want their names off the credits. - LN
------
I read with interest your article entitled "Reader's Digest Opens All Java LookSmart Site". However, I would like to clarify a number of key points:
1) Your article stated that "LookSmart apparently aims to be a sort of kinder, gentler America Online, complete with a ban on content involving 'tobacco, gambling, pornography and firearms.'" LookSmart does not ban content on firearms, tobacco, or gambling. There is extensive coverage of all these topics in our Explore section. Apart from pornography, which we feel is well covered elsewhere online, all the other topics have deep and diverse coverage.
2) At LookSmart we have used Java to present information to an audience that have been previously neglected on the Internet. Our target audience are busy people searching for material relevant to their daily work, leisure, and home lives. By identifying areas of interest to these users, we have formulated simple hierarchies and selected a broad diversity of sites on merit, the majority of which are high quality sites produced by individuals and small organizations, rather than being "confined to the usual big media sites". We are passionate about the democratizing influence of the Web and the far greater diversity and freedom of speech that results. We hope to play some small part in promoting that.
3) We are confused by your reference to "empty menu slots". Clarification would be appreciated.
4) We do have restrictions on the advertising that we will accept, for both policy and legal liability reasons. These are not unlike those of most media companies, but only pertain to whose money we are able to take, not what content we will list.
Finally, as a result of this confusion we have had a number of hostile emails from pro-gun owners who are outraged and threatening to cease using our directory and Reader's Digest magazine because they believe we have banned "firearm content". It would be appreciated if you could please rectify this misunderstanding in your next issue.
Hope this clarifies what we offer Internet consumers and thank you again for your interest.
Evan Thornley, co-founder and CEO, LookSmart Ltd.
------
Here's the scoop on the LookSmart review. It should clarify where all the comments came from. We'll give a brief anatomy of how the review came to be. For the record, here is a linkto the review in question.
Let's take the items in order of flame potential:
With regard to the ban on various politically incorrect content in LookSmart, I quote directly from the LookSmart "About Us" section:
"LookSmart is for people who value quality and not quantity because we provide listings for only the most relevant sites and do not feature listings for pornography or violence. Nor do we advertise products or services related to tobacco, gambling, pornography or firearms."
We simply took that at face value, though we should have been clearer that LookSmart bans only the advertising of tobacco, gambling, pornography, and firearms. We're happy to set the record straight.
Next is the issue of diversity and depth of content. Clearly, we missed the boat on the amount of material at the site, and we'll plead a misunderstanding of the user interface (see below). A second look reveals the large selection of sites available to visitors. However, the comment about the preponderance of "big media sites" was based on a quick look at the "Favorites" section, which seems to favor - you guessed it - big media sites. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but does seem to reflect a particular editorial judgement.
The "empty slots" we thought we'd found led us to question the amount of content at LookSmart's relatively new site. The user interface in the Java version confused us. A few clicks on the "Explore" menu took us deeper and deeper within a hierarchy. At each step, we found a bold menu item to click on further. At the end, we eventually got to a plain-text menu item. Corrupted by too many HTML sites, we saw a plain-text menu item as meaning there was no link associated with that item. In both MacOS and Windows, unhighlighted menu items are not functional, and we never bothered to click on them. We expected that at the end of the menus, we'd get content.
In addition, many new sites present links not yet hooked up to anything (as the staff scrambles to finish the site after the announcement). With more sites to visit, we didn't bother to go further for a ten-line article which urged readers to visit anyway.
Now, here's the process of the site review.
Read press release. Load the site and check the general functionality in the Java version (outstanding). Click on the "Favorites" menu (big media sites). Do a simple search (basically access to the major search engines). Click on a few of the "Explore" links (pretty obvious, note the unhighlighted menus - hmmm, new site, based on past experience probably not all the slots are filled yet). Read through the "About Us" section (who are these guys and what are they trying to do? looks like they're targeting the family-oriented Reader's Digest audience). Condense the info and give the flavor of the site (not a search-engine, bigger than a mere Web site, so what is it? seems a lot like AOL/Prodigy/CompuServe sites in concept).
There it is. Was it a perfect review? No way. We messed up big time on the amount of content, and we should have been clearer on the content ban issue. On the other hand, in about ten lines we told our readers who was behind this, what their goals are, what was our honest impression, and why it's a must-see site.
Let me just note in closing that we get few thoughtful letters debunking our modest NSD items, and it was a pleasure to hear from our readers. We really do appreciate you keeping us honest. - AB
------
I just received your Halloween issue and want to let you know how much I enjoyed it. *VERY* creative! I almost always find something worth checking out in every issue but this issue is really great.
I hope it's okay to distribute your work to everyone in my company (just 18 of us) and to a few clients and friends. It deserves to be enjoyed by a wide audience.
Adriel Brunson
Thanks for the compliments, but we'd prefer that everyone subscribe themselves, for obvious reasons. Sample copies are fine as an introduction. - LN
------
It has been said that true Satan worshippers probably laugh themselves silly when they read about and observe some of the things that self professing "Christian" people do in the name of Halloween. It certainly doesn't appear that you have escaped the part he wants you to play here in the last dying days of his empire.
Thomas Morrow
------
I like Netsurfer Digest to steer me away from the sophomoric wastes of time on the Net, not to put it in my mailbox. No more of this please.
Johnny Lucas
------
I'm always impressed with every issue but this time you've topped yourselves. The stories within a story with links for each shows incredible creativity. You guys should win an award from Netsurfer Digest!
Gary L. Burnore
------
Even better than last year's. You people are geniuses. Thank you.
Kathy Biehl
------
I'm loving this 'zine, man! It's always full of interesting places. I was wondering if you fine people will be putting together a year end index of the sites you've turned us on to? You wouldn't have to rehash the descriptions; Just have the URLs under the categories you have them in already (unless you really want to get busy). Look at it this way: what a beautiful gift to give your loved ones during the holidays. For that I'd be willing to give you a month off! Thanks for all your great work on NSD!
Doug Edwards
We do have a holiday special coming out, though not quite what you suggest. I do wonder what your loved ones would think about NSD as a gift. I guess it's the thought that counts. - LN
------
I did indeed quietly note that you refrained from using the term "Madonna and Child" in the latest issue (NSD 2.33) of Netsurfer Digest. I do indeed quietly appreciate your efforts.
Duane Bristow
------
"Madonna and Child" - an easy one, but good, don't you think? :-)
Adrian Lurssen, Yahoo
Yeah. If you guys hadn't used it first, I would have. But you did, so we were obliged to be snobby about it. :) - LN
------
I am having a real problem reading your publication. When I first subscribed I was using Netscape as my mail program and your publication came in fine, ready for reading. Since then, I have changed to the Pegasus mail program and when I receive Netsurfer Digest it comes in as gibberish. Is there anything you can suggest to remedy this? I enjoyed the one and only issue that I was able to read and would like to see more.
Seeker
Add Pegasus to the list of wonky mail programs. We're looking at the problem, but we're still not sure we can do much about it. - LN
------
NSD is a great resource! Thanks for it, but prior to NSD 2.25, when I received a copy of NSD, I was able to save the e-mail as a file and use my browser to read it (i.e. the resulting file was executable HTML). As of 2.25, the format changed slightly and the resulting saved file is no longer an executable HTML file. In your current form, the only use your e-mail is to me is as a pointer to go to your Web page. The remainder of the text is useless. If I try to read NSD on my mail system, I continually pop back and forth between the browser (to look at interesting sites) and e-mail (to continue to read the digest).
Most of all, keep up the good work, the Digest is "the bomb" (my teens explain "the bomb" is about as good as it gets).
Dave Hunt
I believe what you're saying, but there was absolutely no difference in the header we sent out with NSD 2.25 or later issues. I suspect that some e-mail gateway between you and us is munging your e-mail. Alternatively, your e-mail program may be doing something shocking with the header of the mail message. Hard to tell, but it sure looks like it's nothing on our end. - AB
------
I am a subscriber to your publication, and I am a member of MSN. It seems the Microsoft Exchange system does not support the HTML file format. I asked MSN for assistance in reading my mail from NSD, but they said I need to contact you. I tried resaving my mail with a .HTML format and then opening it in the Microsoft Explorer, but I couldn't bring it up. Please let me know if you have another suggestion.
Elise
It's taking restraint not to rage against the MSMachine. We send out standard HTML documents containing nothing extraordinary. Because MS chooses to be different, you can't read our stuff. The issue we send you is exactly the issue that we put up on our Web page. Again, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to read it yourself, except for your chosen provider. You can e-mail our HTML digest, and this letter to your MSN contact and ask point blank why hundreds of thousands of people can read it normally, but you and other MSN subscribers cannot. - LN
------
I don't know who you are, but I loathe people like you.
Name withheld by decree
How so? Why so? - LN
Good question. I have got to stop sending e-mail when I've been drinking. Half of the time I forget what I sent and why I did it. If I remember why I hate you I'll let you know. Thanks for answering and sorry for being so unpleasant.
Name withheld by decree
------
I hate to ask you this, but this is driving me crazy and you are the only place I have left to go. Sometime late last year, you had an article about a certain site where you could send actual postcards to people. You could type in an address and a message and a real postcard would get sent by snail mail. The first page of this site was a lot of random words with links built around certain words, but the words had absolutely nothing to do with the link. Anyway, I checked the NSDs and found nothing. I'm hoping you can help me out here. The reason I ask is this: I followed your link to this site last year and sent a postcard to my then girlfriend. Out of the blue she calls me last week to ask if I had sent this postcard. I had TOTALLY forgotten about it. I had no clue what she was talking about. Then it came to me in a flash and I realized that although it had taken perhaps a year, the postcard had indeed arrived. I was understandably surprised, and now I want to check out that site again. Please, if you have any more clue of what site I am talking about, give me something to go on. Thanks!
Brad Douglas
I know exactly the place you're talking about. We've covered a few of their escapades. It begins with an "I", but I'm not sure of anything else. Hold on, let me consult the innards of these birds here.... Ah. Now I see it. It's http://www.irational.org/.
So, you two getting back together now? - LN
------
Why does the comment about Pamela Lee's tightly packed bra offend? Well, because it implies that that's all there is to Pamela Lee. Or that we should all be staring at Pamela Lee's breasts. Or several other things. How about "packed tighter than some male celeb's jockstrap"? Better yet, how about avoiding entirely something you yourself admit is in poor taste?
Karen Davis
Is there something else to Pamela Lee? I don't think so.... I would agree that the statement may be offensive to her, but not to a general audience. By the way, Hollywood legend has it that the male celeb of choice would be Milton Berle.
Where to draw the line between poor taste and entertainment is a subjective decision. I think this was still on the printable side of that line. I don't think this is needless or useless - it does make the point. As an aside, this same writer recently used the phrase "packed tighter than a rat in a rattler", so she seems to have fun making up colourful metaphors for tightly packed. - LN
------
Address your letters to
editor@netsurf.com.
Letters and signatures edited for clarity and brevity.