I upgraded to Lion just so I could use this:

Satellite Eyes

Satellite Eyes is a simple Mac app that automatically changes your desktop wallpaper to the satellite view of where you are, right now.

yeah, I had to change the scrolling. I couldn't take Lion's default.

I think this had mostly to do with the fact that I am still using Snow Leopard computers and having to go back and forth was too much.

It only took me a couple of days to adjust. The thing that throws me now is that a handful of my rental machines are still on Snow Leopard so I end up switching back and forth a lot. I do like the new scrolling in combination with the magic mouse.

Is anyone here familiar with Photoshop Elements (eta: V10)?

Am I correct in assuming that the Process Multiple Files option will *not* downsize my images to a given maximum width, but rather resize everything to 800 fucking pixels wide?

I know I had a tool before that observed maximum dimensions, and I got rather carried away thinking that's what I was doing here. And then major oops.

Google has been running experiment to simulate a human brain. They gave the simulation access to the Internet random internet images, and it responded by looking on-line for cats. [link]

Umm, that is a scarily human-like action. On the other hand it is evidence that if we ever create a true artificial intelligence, we don't have to worry about it becoming Skynet because it will be too busy playing "Farmville" and "Words with Friend".

I'm trying to work out simple SEO.

Right now, my provocateuse sites are pretty simply automated. There isn't much language on them, just names and site titles. Amy told me that Google thought one of them needed to be translated from Danish. I have no idea.

Anyway, I'm reading that keywords meta tag is dead. Like, only Bing looks at it, and it looks at it to tell if you're spam. But I would like some way to maybe add text for some people, so other searches than just their given name might find the pages. I'm assuming that most weight goes to words displayed on your page, right? More important than anything in your description tag?

What simple things do you guys do to make your paged play nice with search? I'm not looking to make a second career out of this, but if it's a non-major change to my templates, it might be worth doing.

Search is very content oriented these days, and heavily influenced by the number of pages linked to your pages. The main thing you could do is write captions for the photos that repeat the words you think people might look for. However, Bruce Willis Glad Hands, Bruce Willis Thinking Hands, etc., would get old fast. Adding a small Bruce Willis under each picture would help. Some algorithms also put more emphasis on headlines, so having the top Bruce Willis in t h1 could help.

Off the top of my head - Meta keywords are utterly useless, but meta descriptions are powerful. A language declaration in the header should take care of the Danish problem - without it, it's just taking a best guess based on whatever text is on the page, which is usually just people's names and a few links IIRC?

Your easiest wins will probably be to add meta descriptions and improve your alt tags -- it looks like they're just echoing the file name of name_01, name_02, etc -- if they're descriptive, that will massively increase the amount of parsable text on the page. Descriptive filenames might also help, but might not be worth the trouble of recoding all those links, depending on how you're generating things.

This is a decent overview of some factors for images (not all of which will apply): [link] . That site has decently non-scammy SEO advice overall, and it's an area with way more scammy advice than not.

Right now, the subject's name is in the t title the name of every image (I could stand to give them alt text too), and at the top of each page in no header tag at all. and the site name is t h1 linking back to root. Would making the person's name an t h2 tag have a significant effect?

The system is set to automate caption displays the same way it parses for the pictures themselves. I use that spottily, though. If there's a credit to the photo of an interesting source (like, if it's from theatre) I use it, but it's rare. I could get better at that, but I don't know if your eyes would cross if there are ten pictures of Shemar Moore with his name under every one as well as at the top of the page.

Jesus, 10 pictures of Shemar Moore. No rush on answering the questions, I'm going to be mentally inaccessible for a while here.