Exploring Chrome’s timeline panel

Subsequent to some performance issues with a few Backbone apps, I spent some time digging further into Google Chrome’s timeline panel, and specifically the memory view that shows allocated memory, and breaks down the number of DOM nodes held in memory.

Some tests/demos along with provisional findings are provided here: chrome timeline exploration. The official documentation for Chrome’s dev tools is getting better, but could still use improvement. Hopefully this will go some way to providing a bit more insight into what’s going on, what different numbers mean, and what sort of behaviour you can expect from common scenarios.

As I’m nowhere near an expert of Chrome’s internals nor on memory profiling in general, any suggestions or corrections are more than welcome (pull requests or whatever).

Marxist or Marxian

Is there a difference?

Can someone tell me what the difference is between being a Marxist vs. being a Marxian, or whether there even is a difference? For a long time, I assumed there was no difference, and no distinction was needed. But the more Marx I read, the more value I see in having terminology to differentiate positions that areĀ  “actually” Marx’s (i.e. for which there is relatively agreed-upon textual evidence) from those to which “Marxists” subsequently adhered, or promulgated.

Continue reading “Marxist or Marxian”

How not to do a call to action

As any email marketer knows, your call to action is a crucial element of your campaign. When tweaking your text can double your conversion rates, you can’t afford to ignore it. Even a 5% increase in conversion rates can translate into huge sales if you’re talking about thousands of customers.

So why PayPal, a company who you might think would know better, would use this confusing and non-clickthrough-inspiring call to action text is beyond me.

Continue reading “How not to do a call to action”

Google’s confusing and questionable advice on URL rewriting

Kudos to the Google Webmaster Central Blog for what seems like a conscious effort to try to address head-on the concerns of the community over common problem areas like duplicate content and 404s. But their most recent effort, which examines the pros and cons of statics vs. dynamic URLs from Google’s point of view, seem to have resulted in more heat than light, with a number of confused commenters responding to the post.

The gist of the entry was that you should probably leave your dynamic URLs as-is, because Google has no problem crawling them; re-writing them, if done improperly, can increase the difficulty of crawling your site, and is also hard to maintain.

I think Google seems to think that doing URL rewrites is more difficult than it is. I would like to think that most websites are either using a CMS that can adequately handle this (as is the case with WordPress, Drupal and Joomla! for instance), or are being run by someone who has the technical expertise to ensure that this is done appropriately and straightforwardly.

But even if that isn’t the case, Google’s advice here runs counter to the more reasonable advice provded in Tim Berners-Lee‘s W3C Style article, Cool URIs Don’t Change.

There are many reasons for using “cool URIs”, including the fact that they are easier to type, recognize and remember for people. One of the best reasons offered in this article, though, is that if you have a bunch of technology-dependent cruft in your URL, then you decide to switch the underlying technology, you’re going to end up with an entirely different URL structure, thus breaking all the bookmarks and links that have ever been made to your site.

I think the advantages of cool URIs outweigh the risks associated with mapping your dynamic URLs to static URLs, and it is kind of narrow-minded for Google to look at this only as a search engine crawling problem, rather than seeing it in a larger context.


There’s a good post over at SEOmoz on the same topic that lists a bunch of other reasons why, on balance, rewriting your dynamic URLs is still a good idea.