It looks as if other strips [websnark.com] will soon have their own searchable archives. But let the record show that Goats fans, thanks especially to a drunken Jedi [goats.com], have been doing this for more than two and a half years.

What can I say? We rule.
 

Couldn't you have skipped the blathering, and just linked to ohnorobot [ohnorobot.com]?

And leave it to that alligator to get it wrong - "Already, some of the big hitter sites like Wigu, Goats and White Ninja Comics are on board." Goats is not on board, you sloppy git - we've been using our own engine for (as the g-man says) two and a half years.

And let's also be clear, this is a somewhat inferior product. It merely has transcripts of the comic text, it doesn't allow you, for instance, to trace the Fish's goggles to the first time they showed up...

Maybe in v3.0....

In Response to zamphir (#30223):

We are on board, in the sense that we've worked with Ryan to get our data into his database. Given, our system is a little more robust, but this allows cross-strip searching and a centralized location. Both systems are useful and complimentary.

In Response to jon (#30224):

Both systems are ... complimentary.

Hopefully without being obsequious.

In Response to mkinyon (#30225):

Why do we not yet have a '+1 Grammatically Excellent' mod? Because I would have awarded one for this excellent piece of often-misused-homonyms correction, if there was one.

Only there isn't.

Oh, well, I guess it makes up for spelling cholesterol wrong.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, the currently preferred procedure is to put all extrapolated text within a quote, including ellipses used for elisions, within square brackets. I have not, however, been active in academia for several years, so it could well have changed.

In Response to sakuruth (#30226):

My thanks for the fictitious mod. Of course, my correction was itself not a complete sentence, but that was a feature, not a bug.

if there was one

"were". Counterfactual conditional, hence subjunctive mode, don'tya know.

I guess it makes up for spelling cholesterol wrong.

You're never going to let that one go, are you?

the currently preferred procedure is to put [...] ellipses used for elisions[...] within square brackets

The MLA Handbook recommends this. The APA and Chicago Style Manuals do not address the issue. I was actually following the practice one sees in critic quotes in newspaper movie ads: "Must ... see!"

In Response to zamphir (#30223):

Couldn't you have skipped the blathering, and just linked to ohnorobot?

Sure. But then, what would prompt you to get all angry on the Intar-web? You've really outdone yourself with "sloppy git".
 

In Response to zamphir (#30223):

To elaborate on Jon's post, Ryan also has a simple HTTP GET based API for moving transcriptions into the system. When one of our transcriptions is "approved" by a moderator, the transcription is automatically sent over there right after being indexed by our search engine.

If you want to search for "just" Goats stuff there, you can use: http://www.ohnorobot.com/index.pl?comic=24 [ohnorobot.com] to do so.

In Response to sakuruth (#30226):

You write as many comic strips as I have today and see if you're still worried about a little homonymphobia.

In Response to jon (#30231):

I'm odd by your productivity.

In Response to phillip (#30230):

Can I disparage Ryan for using GET instead of POST, too?

In Response to zamphir (#30234):

Don't bother, I'm taking him into training.

In Response to phillip (#30237):

I'm taking him into training.

Don't forget to teach him how to use CPAN...

In Response to zamphir (#30238):

we're working on mod_perl [apache.org] first. Then I'm making a Mason [masonhq.com] convert.

In Response to phillip (#30243):

Did I mention that I've been playing with Catalyst [cpan.org] recently, and it's pretty cool?

Granted, it wants to use TemplateToolkit by default, rather than Mason. But, big deal.

In Response to zamphir (#30244):

Also, I knew if I looked for it, I'd find Catalyst::View::Mason [cpan.org].

In Response to phillip (#30237):

While you're at it, force some SOAP on him. Just make sure you don't drop it. You want to be the master...

In Response to zamphir (#30244):

Yeah, but it doesn't seem to offer quite enough to justify rewriting the past 8.5 years worth of code just to use a purportedly fancier, shinier tool.

In Response to phillip (#30249):

Refactor mercilessly.

In Response to Dynedain (#30248):

Aparently some moderator has never heard about the XML over HTTP joy known as SOAP [wikipedia.org].

In Response to zamphir (#30234):

Are you calling him a stupid GET?

In Response to Dynedain (#30293):

no, some moderator probably just thinks that SOAP is over-engineered, and there's little reason the same thing couldn't have been done in XML-RPC.

In Response to phillip (#30303):

I was assuming that some moderator didn't like Dave Weiner.

In Response to zamphir (#30304):

if one starts to dislike every over-opinionated blowhard on the internet...

In Response to phillip (#30315):

if one starts to dislike every over-opinionated blowhard on the internet..

One rapidly becomes one.