I’ve been using Google Docs lately to write papers because it is so much easier to move from computer to computer than with traditional word docs. Once you get used to the interface, it really is just as effective… save for one major problem — there is no way to determine how much you have written!

Paul Stamantiou says it much better than I, so I suggest reading his post here.

“The problem comes with the fact that it is damn hard to get a real sense of how much you have written in Google Docs due to the lack of a proper, ruled page layout view. I have gotten to the point of frustration; continually copying and pasting my documents into a real word processor…”

I don’t know how many times I’ve sent an email to the Customer Service of an online retailer or service provider and received a templated customer service email response that does not answer my question.

Just today I emailed a major general merchant about an item I purchased that arrived damaged. I informed them of the damage and asked if they could send a replacement immediately (before receiving my return) because I need the item for a date-sensitive reason. Of course, they replied with their return policy and no answer to my question at all.

Now, I realize that the templating of emails saves a ton of money in regards to costs, but someone should be reviewing these emails before they are sent out to ensure that the templated reply answers the question. If it does not, it wastes time for both the customer and the company (having to answer yet another email when I reply with the same question) and wastes money for the company. Surely, it would cost less to answer the question correctly the first time.

It makes me not even want to use email as a method to deal with CS, which is a real shame because it is much more convenient than using the phone.

I came across this page on bukowski.net, a site dedicated to the work of Charles Bukowski. The developers use the javascript “history.back()” function on the “Return” link, but because I hadn’t come from the index page, this did not take me there (it should take you back here).

Do you consider user paths from external links when you test your site?

Why do online newspapers and other publications insist on breaking up their articles into multiple pages? Is it some relic of the old dial-up days? A way to generate more ad revenue (via more impressions)?

Either way, it is very annoying from a reader’s perspective. At the very least, they should offer the ability to view the entire article (though it is often available that way by using the “print” button).

Check out how this Boston Herald article breaks up the two “pages” — what a waste!

(BTW, if you’re interested in the hilarious incident described in the article, video is here.)

I got a letter in the mail today from the IRS encouraging me to e-file my taxes. Although it would be easier to e-file, I have steadfastly refused to do this over the past few years because they charge for this service. Why should I pay to make their lives easier? (Surely it is a cost savings for them when people e-file.)

But wait! Myth number one about e-file, according to this letter, is that 96 million taxpayers are eligible to use this service for free. Wait again! What about the other 200 million?

This reminds me of the Ticketmaster “TicketFast” program, where they charge you $1.50 to print your tickets immediately, but don’t charge at all to mail them to you. How is it better for Ticketmaster to mail the tickets? They have to be printed out, put in an envelope and mailed. The other way, they don’t have to do anything.

Instead of trying to convince me to spend money to save them some, shouldn’t the government be improving their service? How about creating a TaxCut / TurboTax clone and putting it on the IRS site and allowing people to use it for free? I don’t know much about the IRS, but it seems like this would be the best way to get tax information in a standardized format that would really cut costs.

Building a wine cellar is a difficult proposition; you need space, money and time. These are obvious points, but there is one other thing that is less obvious and perhaps the most difficult — knowing which wines to cellar and for how long.

Did you ever see a wine label say “Drink now through 2010″, or “Best cellared for five to fifteen years”? Of course not. I’ve even visited many vineyard websites and have never once seen this mentioned by the producer. For those who aren’t extremely knowledgeable in this area (most of us), the only way to find out whether a wine should be cellared or not is to get lucky with an online review or know somebody who knows.

Why is this? From a marketing / sales standpoint, the percentage of people who purchase wines to cellar must be extremely low, so I can understand why a winery wouldn’t be promoting the fact that a particular wine should be stored, but on the other hand if they are making wine that will be even better in five years, wouldn’t they want people to know this?

One good thing is the emergence of wine sharing sites on the web, such as cellartracker, cork’d and winelog. These sites allow the experts to provide some extra information about wine and help n00bs try to learn more about how to build up a nice collection.

I’ve been using Cellar Tracker because it has a large community of serious oenophiles. Cork’d is a bit more light and fun; I haven’t really played with Wine Log yet.