Return of the Bride of Housekeeping

Those of you reading this blog off its LJ feed might have wondered why I've been so quiet this past week. Apparently, LJ thinks I'm fat. Neither of the entries I posted this week--a joint review of Richard Linklater's A Scanner Darkly and Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain, and an entry about Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and Heroes--have shown up on the feed, and the excuse seems to be that they are 'too big'.

Yeah, I'm sure that's not going to keep causing problems.

Comments

Anonymous said…
What I've seen happen before when long posts don't get picked up on their own is that a short post "triggers" the feed, and it picks up the last four or five entries in a splurge. The Mumpsimus feed is particularly vulnerable to this.
October 20, 2006 6:05 PM
chance said…
Heh - I just clicked over here wondering if I had missed you posting or if you had been quiet this week
October 20, 2006 10:25 PM
Abigail Nussbaum said…
What I've seen happen before when long posts don't get picked up on their own is that a short post "triggers" the feed

I was hoping that this post would do the trick, but so far no joy.
October 21, 2006 12:23 AM
Anonymous said…
I thought you were on holiday or busy - I'll stop relying on that feed
October 25, 2006 6:05 PM
Anonymous said…
The "too big" error is for the whole feed, rather than individual posts and the limit is 150KB so I guess a possible solution if blogger supports it is to trim the number of entries on the feed, making it more likely to stay under the limit.
October 26, 2006 2:39 PM
Abigail Nussbaum said…
Yeah, it's starting to look like the problem was that the feed file was holding on to a ridiculous number of posts (I suspect this has something to do with the switch to Blogger Beta). There doesn't appear to be an option to limit the number of posts in the blog's settings, but I'll dig around on Blogger's help site and see what I can find.
October 26, 2006 6:30 PM

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Somehow, It Got Worse

The last month has been a busy one in Hugo and Worldcon fandom. After the shock of the much-belated 2023 nominating stats, and their revelation of serious irregularities in the compilation of the award's ballot, there was a great ferment of conversation and action. Mainstream publications have caught wind of the scandal and publicized it far and wide . Turnover in the few permanent committees that oversee the Hugo trademark and intellectual property has been high . The poor folks at the upcoming Glasgow Worldcon have been scrambling to respond to the evolving situation and to distance themselves from the previous committee—including, most recently, making a laconic announcement that they would refuse any of Chengdu's passalong funds, the budgetary surplus that is traditionally bequeathed from one Worldcon to the next. And stats nerds—of which this community is, unsurprisingly, blessed with a surfeit—have been furiously crunching the nominations numbers and EPH calculations
Read more

The 2023 Hugo Awards: Now With an Asterisk

It's been a while since we've had one of these dramas. On Saturday, the nominating stats for the 2023 Hugo awards, which were announced in Chengdu, China in October 2023, were released to the public . There was a great deal of anticipation for these numbers, in no small part because of their much-delayed release. Though the WSFS constitution permits Hugo administrators to wait as long as 90 days before releasing the voting and nominating stats, most Hugo teams have them ready to go within minutes of the ceremony's conclusion. Chengdu, in contrast, waited the full allotted period, and even went a little bit over (the voting stats were released separately in December). Once the stats were released, it quickly became clear why the Chengdu Hugo team were hesitant to make them public. There are any number of irregularities and questionable choices in this document that suggest everything from erratic voter behavior, to incompetent collation and calculation of the nomination rank
Read more

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga

The first thing that must be said about this movie is that it should not work. It's a prequel to one of the most mind-blowing, groundbreaking, and just plain revolutionary action movies of the 21st century—and prequels are a bad idea in most cases, but all the more so when the character they revolve around has already given you their entire backstory in their original introduction, which is also the final, culminating act of their character arc. (To put it another way, if you had asked me, nine years ago, which character I thought offered more fertile ground for prequel storytelling, Imperator Furiosa or Han Solo, I would have picked Han without a moment's hesitation, and I don't even like Han that much.) And it's a follow-up to a movie whose chief virtue lies in its conciseness—in being a single, drawn-out, pulse-pounding, increasingly deranged car chase. Which means you can either try to repeat that accomplishment, which will inevitably feel a bit old hat; or you can
Read more