Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Kirk Biglione
I help businesses and entrepreneurs build and optimize their online presence.
I help businesses and entrepreneurs build and optimize their online presence.

Communities and Collections
View all

Post has shared content
I get so many questions about eCommerce I've created a course to answer them all. And it's free (for now).
Learn how to sell anything from your WordPress website. Our free eCommerce Quick Start course starts in a few days. Sign up now!

Post has attachment
Don't be fooled by the big round version number. WordPress 4 is not like Windows 8.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Has anyone managed to setup cross-domain tracking in Google Analytics with LeadBoxes?  

Installing the GA code for the LeadBox isn't a problem. I've found that the URL parameters that GA appends are removed by LeadPages.  When the user is redirected to my site GA records a new visit. As a result I've lost all data on which pages are generating new leads. 

Under "Advanced Settings" there are some additional URL's that can be added for tracking purposes, but these don't match the GA cross-domain parameters. 

The only workaround would be to create new LeadBoxes for each page. That not practical in my case (25+ pages generating leads).

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
There's still time to register for my WordPress theme webinar tomorrow morning (Wed. March 12 @ 11am PDT). Excited to be using Google hangouts for a webinar for the first time.

Post has attachment
You have until this Friday to comment on the IDPF's proposed DRM scheme for EPUB.

Here's what I told the IDPF:

I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the EPUB LCP proposal currently being considered by the IDPF.

As the proposal notes, there is a "growing recognition among publishers that DRM has aspects that work against their interests." LCP claims to offer relief in the form of a standardized lightweight copy protection scheme. Unfortunately, LCP does nothing to address the very real challenges facing publishers in the retail marketplace.

As you are well aware, several major ebook retailers already use Adobe's commercial DRM system. For all intents and purposes, ebooks purchased from Barnes & Noble, Kobo, Sony, and several independent retailers, are already interoperable. 

The challenge facing publishers is not the lack of a standard DRM, but rather the refusal on the part of several high profile retailers to adopt a common DRM.  There's no reason to believe the development of EPUB LCP will solve this problem. Amazon, the clear market leader, is unlikely to adopt EPUB because of the emergence of a new DRM standard. Further, the probability of Apple replacing its FairPlay system with LCP is exactly zero. 

If every retailer currently using Adobe DRM adopts LCP as a standard, the net impact on the consumer ebook market will be negligible, at best. In the worst case, LCP could significantly confuse the market by diluting the EPUB brand and adding yet another form of DRM to the already confusing mix of format variations. The fact that LCP breaks backwards compatibility with older devices and reading systems only adds to the pain that consumers will experience.

Curiously, the proposal rules out watermarking as an acceptable form of copy control, and does so at a time when watermarking is finally receiving serious consideration from publishers due to the high profile success of Pottermore.

And yet, watermarking accomplishes many of the goals that LCP is supposed to accomplish, with none of the limitations. Significantly, watermarking addresses a couple of important use cases that are missing from the LCP proposal:

* Watermarking allows publishers to sell direct to Kindle owners while maintaining at least a minimal form of copy control. (I realize this isn't an IDPF concern, but any proposal that fails to acknowledge this challenge is not grounded in the real world).

* Watermarking allows consumers to shift formats as needed. Without format shifting EPUB is "just another format that doesn't work on my Kindle."

The LCP proposal is more concerned with maintaining DMCA compatibility than it is with solving real world problems. This artificial requirement leads to the complete dismissal of watermarking, while simultaneously positioning the IDPF to pursue litigation over LCP cracking tools. If this is the direction the IDPF is headed, the future of ebook standards looks bleak.

LCP may be an appropriate solution for library lending, but it does nothing to solve the challenges publishers face in a retail landscape dominated by Amazon. 

If the IDPF is intent on solving the problems of lending institutions then it would be more appropriate to redefine LCP as "Library Copy Protection." That would at least make it clear that LCP is not suitable for retail ebook sales.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
Despite this benchmark comparison I haven't noticed WP 3.3 to be significantly slower than recent versions of WordPress. If anything, the admin UI enhancements make editing seem a bit snappier.
Wait while more posts are being loaded