Thank You, Random.org
Yeah, we’re going a bit OT today. If you don’t want to get Whacky, come back next time.
The world is a cruel place, and my fabulous readers have found that out this week. In spite of some stellar efforts that made my stats (which I really don’t obsess over, Tei) do cartwheels, not a one of you has left the required quotation in the comments of last Thursday’s amazing review of a life-altering work of non-fiction.
You won’t mind my telling you, stats or not I was miffed.
Plus amazon wants my money, because Jeff Bezos and I are like this, and he’s been watching the (distinct lack of) drama.
What to do? Sad for an Experience Designer to admit, but this Experience has not resulted in a giggly winner jumping up and down.
Until now?
I woke up today at an excruciating hour, and remembered somebody mentioning this cool random number generator which they used on their blog to give away something. Hey, I’ve got something I can’t give away! Perfect! I got up, I hunted it down, and looked at the number of comments on my review last week.
I typed “18” into the random number generator. No snickering, for a very niche blog I think that’s a nice number.
I’m not 6 Weeks or Men With Pens or even the occasionally very wild Writing Forward (thanks, Friar), but I love my commenters, because you’re smart and you make me think, as well as letting me make you think a bit. (Who says I can’t link out purely for fun?)
It’s decided: I’ll give A Whack on the Side of the Head to the commenter whose number comes up, since y’all found better things to do this week than to locate this reference to my age, on a post which followed and mentioned my birthday:
What’s that? Oh, thanks. Don’t look a day over 38 3/4, do I?”
That post has been restored to its former glory, so the reference to my age is no more. It has been there all week, though, you hunters. No crying that it was too difficult.
I Bet You Think This Song Is About You, Don’t You?
I typed in “18.” Yeah, I said that already. I hit “Go,” or whatever their button said. It spits it out: 11.
I count down, 1, 2, 3,… oh, darn, the eleventh comment is my own. This could get sticky, since I leave quite a few comments.
I tried again. Didn’t you read the title?
Number 10, you may stand up. And for those of you who are sick of this tease, it’s that Quebecer who was the only one to jump up and down at all in those comments, so it sorta seems fair anyway, even though he was wrong and then got Bright Shiny Object Syndrome and forgot to get it right.
Mr. Chartrand, if you feel like emailing me a secret post-office box address that you only keep for a week so I won’t send you flowers daily after this, I’ll talk to Jeff and we’ll get that book right out to you. ‘Cuz I’m not going to disappoint Roger.
The rest of you? Buy the book already. It will alter the way you look at your world. No kidding.
Grow and be well,
Kelly Erickson












22 May 2008, 7:27 am
Oh you’re frackin’ kidding me. That’s too funny.
And your search bar is broken, because I searched 38 three ways to Sunday and back. 38. Thirty-eight. Thirty Eight. thirtyeight. Thirty. Eight. 39? 37? 38.
Nothing.
You bribed the bastard, didn’t you.
Two lessons:
Only certain people obsess with finding the answer.
Interest passes quickly on the ‘net.
People give up realllllly quickly these days.
(Alright, that’s three lessons. Bet no one would’ve noticed if I didn’t point it out.)
My question is, Why?
22 May 2008, 9:07 am
James,
Did I mention no crying?
#1, I searched for 38 right after I put it up, and it worked. I can’t explain your inability to find it.
Also, I hinted strongly that “birthday” danced around the answer, and a search for that word would have done it.
Or just looking at a couple of posts near the aforementioned birthday, that’s where I’d look for a reference to someone’s age.
I was very pleased with how long the echo was on this, though. People were definitely clicking around for most of the week. I hammed it up at the bottom of each post, which was no doubt helpful.
I expected someone to yell that this was rigged, but I didn’t expect it to be Mr. Giggly. You crack me up.
My insomnia is your win.
Regards,
Kelly
22 May 2008, 9:09 am
Oh, yeah. That was supposed to be #1, #2, #3… Too tired for continuity. Ugh.
22 May 2008, 12:44 pm
Oh God. I’m no good at these kind of number cracking code things. That’s too mean.
Why don’t you start another one I can understand? I’m not a good puzzle solver. But like I said I found Kenneth Branagh.
22 May 2008, 1:32 pm
I looked, but you see, we’re on the metric system up here.
What is this “3/4″ of which you speak?
-Brett
22 May 2008, 2:03 pm
Ellen,
There was no code, dear. Just a mention of my age. I might go easier next time, or…
For you, the next one will be, what has Kenneth Branagh had that Kelly would give her right arm for?
Although once having given my right arm, having it might be less useful.
James, be quiet, this puzzle is for Ellen alone.
Start now, I’ll check back with you in about a year.
Yup, looks like I am mean. Mean, mean.
Brett,
It’s about what I’d look like after I gave my right arm.
You have got “38″ up there in Splat Creek, haven’t you? Or don’t nuclear engineers have to count that high now that computers do it all for you?
Forgive me, but every time I think of you and Friar, I see Homer Simpson. When Friar really gets going, I worry for Canada.
Until later,
Kelly
22 May 2008, 2:41 pm
I can haz sliderulez.
Nookular Engineerz don’t have to count higher than 3.
1 – 2 – 3 – run!!!
The sad truth is, sometimes our *leaders* look a lot like Homer Simpson…
Actually, we have a saying here, that goes like this:
“Poor Canada.”
We usually say it when some new ‘Operational Excellence Initiative’ is rolled out.
Meanwhile, the roof in my old building leaks when it rains….
22 May 2008, 2:59 pm
Brett,
ROFLOL. Oh, darn. Get me a cat, that HAS to be put up right away.
Ooh, speaking of time-sucks, I haven’t visited icanhascheezburger in a long time…
…cured. That one’s for you and Friar. It took nine pages of giggles, and now I have tears streaming down my cheeks.
… but your stairs iz fixed.
Later,
Kelly
22 May 2008, 5:31 pm
Kelly,
Oh, that link *was* good, thank you…
Yes, stairz iz fixed, but reaktorz iz clozed… I cant haz isodopz…
dang.
Poor Canada.
-Brett
22 May 2008, 6:23 pm
Brett,
You’re very welcome. I think poor Friar might need it today, his swimwear is being unjustly maligned.
I am totally LOL at isodopz. Apparently, I am a sucker for nuclear-engineer-humor.
Poor Canada—how can a change of border possibly make one nation’s self-esteem so different? Hmm.
Until later,
Kelly
22 May 2008, 8:27 pm
Kelly
I guess 38 is almost as old as a woman ever gets (because from then on, she just stays 39…).
And don’t worry about me being a Nucular Engineer. I’m in project management right now…I push paper.
I no longer have to handle any radioactive material (not to my knowledge, at least)
22 May 2008, 8:39 pm
Nuclear reacting material unjustly maligned. That is a great line!
Ah, Kenneth Branagh. You would like his swimwear to be unjustly maligned?
I win the prize! I win the prize!
22 May 2008, 8:48 pm
Friar,
Nah, age doesn’t bug me. Confidence, I suppose, and not much vanity. My Dad, on the other hand, was 29 for a rather long time. Hmm.
I’m glad Canada is safe for now, since Brett haz his sliderulez and you have your paper. Hope you liked the “cured” link. I don’t know if it can cure the sillyness at your blog, but I don’t think you’d want that….
Later,
Kelly
22 May 2008, 8:53 pm
Ellen,
I believe his wife takes care of his swimwear, and more power to her.
Don’t worry, there are 364 more days. 364 1/4 if you’re not on metrics.
Later,
Kelly
23 May 2008, 3:28 am
Yowsers. All these numbers are making my writer’s brain hurt. Okay, maybe it’s just a little tingle. Thanks for the link Kelly! And thanks for the compliment too (yes, wild is a compliment where I come from).
23 May 2008, 1:40 pm
Melissa,
It is where I come from, too. I read that post of yours before it got wild, so I had no idea. Too funny.
Numbers make the world go ’round, but I’ll try to keep them at a minimum.
Regards,
Kelly
23 May 2008, 2:55 pm
Kelly-I seriously upped your page views. It must have been hidden in plain sight. Aughhhh. a win for the Canadians…but I have read the book already haha…wait til next time…moi? competitive? Non, pas moi.
23 May 2008, 4:38 pm
Janice,
It was the funniest thing. My pageviews were out of control. I loved it. Sorry you didn’t catch it! Hmm, when can I do this again?
Cam Beck, from whom I got the idea, does it every time the swag he gets is good enough to review, to say yeah, I believe in it enough to purchase it. So what I need is MORE SWAG.
Any authors lurking?
I’d go broke, but have very happy stats.
Until later,
Kelly
24 May 2008, 12:02 am
Interesting marketing lesson in making the contest, the question, the hoop-to-jump for the prize actually be of interest to the jumpee.
You look swell in your photo, but that and your age haven’t nothing to do with why I check out your blog in a long list of others I need to get to each day (at best.)
I’d rather buy the book than read another pitch for a contest about finding what, to me, was a random number, but there’s no link to the book in your sidebar that said “this is the book you should buy this week” — the title/link in your posts blends in as if it were to some other post — maybe include the words “remarkable book” prior to the title, for us lammos who aren’t into contests or for when we fall behind on a series of posts, or won’t hunt for ‘easter eggs.’
Your blog is better than gimmicks Kelly — it’s content. Thanks for keeping at it!
24 May 2008, 7:12 am
GirlPie,
Thanks about the photo. The age had to do with how long I’ve owned the book, nothing more. Ironically my age is no secret, so it was not at all a fish for compliments about my photo, which folks were welcome to give me before last Thursday.
Certainly, “hoops to jump” are not for everyone. Not every reader has any interest. Then again, giving away books isn’t free, and that’s not for everyone, either. That’s out-of pocket. Mine.
There’s no direct monetization here. Though you may purchase that book, it is absolutely not the point. If my links are discreet, I’m sure we all know our way to amazon without my help. Folks who “jumped through the hoops” didn’t see more ads or do anything to help me recoup the (admittedly minimal) cost, because I have no ads.
In blog terms, the article was not Stumbled, or Dugg, nor as far as I know, Twittered. I had no swell in readership, which suits me as I don’t think this blog has ever had anything but a utterly genuine readership. I wasn’t looking to promote the blog, only to rave about Roger’s book, and promote creative thinking in action, and find a goofy way for you to learn a bit more about Experience Design. The Easter egg got people to read, and comment other than on my last post, and talk about the subject some more.
Gimmicks should involve some sort of ROI. Since I lost money and gained no (new) readers, I don’t think this was much different than my 100th birthday post. With one exception: I did want you to rush out and get A Whack, because it will change your thinking process and improve your creativity, instantly.
For readers who “won’t hunt for Easter eggs” anyway, no title in the world would have made a difference to when they read the post, and when they read the post, would have made no difference to enjoying it.
I gained nothing except we all had a little fun.
I hope you’ve been enjoying the posts since last Thursday, and I hope you’ll continue to make great use of the content here. Feel free to pass the word on about the MCE Blog, and keep commenting with your point of view! Thanks!
Regards,
Kelly
26 May 2008, 2:34 pm
Agreed that gimmicks should only be used to improve ROI; the fact this this contest returned conversation, searches, some page hit bump, and more mention of the book may be enough, but the ROI (investment = cost of the book to you + your time) wasn’t as high as you’d have liked, which was my point in why it was a good marketing lesson to us all.
I’ve been enjoying most of your blog posts for the last four months, so you’re now a trusted source and the book’s been purchased. I’m a sucker for the word “instantly!”
Thank you, and keep up the good work.
(I especially like how you format and sign your comments, here and in other blogs,like letters; clean, professional, and easy to spot in a skim!)
26 May 2008, 6:43 pm
GirlPie,
I think I may not have been clear. I’m saying this was not at all a gimmick.
The “ROI” doesn’t bother me in the least, because I wasn’t looking for any. I was only sad that I didn’t have someone find the reference, that’s all.
(Signatures: That’s me. I treat blogs as letters between colleagues. Thanks for the compliment!)
Regards,
Kelly