One Skein.

The One Skein Wonder.

One Skein Wonders (the book, not to be confused with One Skein Wonder, the pattern. Don’t make me post a responsive comment about copyright, trademark, and titles, thanks).

What’s next? Why, why not two balls of yarn?

You know those television commercials for men’s disposable shaver heads that feature three — no four! five! blades? That’s what I’m thinking.

[W]e think of [the April] edition as our chance to welcome new designers — not just new to us, but new to the business of designing — in order to give them a chance to work with professionals. Our hope is that they’ll be able to hone their skills, particularly the difficult and exacting art of pattern writing…

Sometimes, it doesn’t work out quite the way we intended.

This year, for example, after more than a month of working with her, one designer balked at her patterns being brought into line with KnitNet standards. We pride ourselves on offering consistent, accurate patterns so felt we had to insist. Ultimately, she took her socks and went home.

Too bad for all of us because, not only did it delay publication by weeks, it leaves us a little shy on patterns for this edition.

The editrix thinks there’s a lesson to be learned with. I spot two:

1. The designer — even a new one — should have realized that all publications have standards for pattern writing (and this page links to KnitNet’s standards in PDF form). Assuming that the tech editor wasn’t proposing to do something that changed the meaning of the pattern instructions, well, that’s the way it is, but somehow I find it hard to believe that even a first-time contributor would object to a particular style of abbreviation or formatting. I wonder what happened?

2. I am apparently old-fashioned enough to think that it is not professional for an editor of a periodical to describe, in an editorial, how difficult it was to work with a would-be contributor, and to use that story to explain why an issue was late or otherwise lacking.

And an exercise for discussion: what was the “good deed”, anyway?

And as a bonus, lesson number three can be found here, in a reprint of an earlier gem penned by the publisher:

Everywhere I look on the Web, every search I do turns up, not useful and valuable information any more, but increasingly, somebody’s personal opinion, on their website or blog or podcast.

Now there is nothing wrong with this… The problem is that all this opinion on the Web makes searching for the facts more and more difficult. Now I have to wear my hip waders when I surf the Web. It gets harder and harder to find the pearls in amongst the straw.

There has been much talk of creating two separate Webs, one for business and one for personal use. I think it is a great idea. It can’t come too soon.

Hey, Web 1.0 called. It wants its web-safe palette back. Will his opinion change in 2012 when he learns about the companies engaging in topical or vertical searching?

I can understand being overwhelmed by the volume of user-generated content out there, but the individual searching the web for answers doesn’t cope only by taking information with a grain of salt; he needs to learn how and where to ask questions… and sometimes the “where” is “not on the Internet”. (That’s a fact.)

Dividing the world of information into “business” and “personal” (excuse my ignorance, but what is he talking about? .biz? a non-HTTP protocol? what “separate Web”?) doesn’t solve the problem of separating fact from opinion. (That’s an opinion.)

Also, Ravelry + this guy = some kind of explosion that will tear a hole in the universe. (Is that fact or opinion?)

Simple. Instead of blogging the most popular hits and search terms used to reach your website, issue a press release.

So of course, I started screaming, and not in a good way, when I saw this.

This is like bringing back leg warmers,. Which has evidently happened, so if you’ll pardon me I’m going to go barricade myself in the basement because I’m going to get bombarded with seventeen-syllabled hate mail from knitters dressed like Olivia Newton-John.

(Another thing I had been working on five years ago had been the KnitQ quiz (mentioned as vaporware — answer a bunch of questions, find out if you’re an opinionated knitter, blind follower, or a couple of other character types I can’t remember at this instant. And I never finished it. But thankfully, all those bleepin’ quiz generator websites stepped in, and blogs were never the same.)

Lil’ Kim says she wants to take up knitting in prison in order to make things like Martha Stewart’s famous prison poncho. 

[from transcript provided by Critical TV, via Gawker]

Well, this is a woman who has been featured on Go Fug Yourself more than once.

XRX is a publisher most commonly known for KNITTER‚ÄôS Magazine, an important periodical for serious knitters. KNITTER‚ÄôS attracts the higher-end, designer-conscious hand-knitter, working in specialty yarns, from handspun alpaca to novelty “Fizz.”

(From the alumni page of the fashion school at Kent State — scroll over to Natalie Sorenson, XRX’s Production Coordinator.)

I thought of this after reading La KC’s post for today, in which she reminds us that questionable yarn choices in knitting magazines are usually advertiser-driven.

(Found via LJ crochet_snark. I’m sure that somewhere, there’s a garter stitch equivalent.)

(Yes, I wanted to offend your sensibilities.)

More ranting on LJ, but keep in mind that Deb Stoller does not have a trademark registration although she might arguably have common law rights in STITCH ‘N BITCH. Anyway, advising everyone to use “Stitch ‘n Bitch” in a group name on the assumption that it’s Deb Stoller’s trademark… (a) doesn’t protect you from the depredations of a certain other trademark owner–if that owner sees no difference between “&” and “and”, then why would it see a difference between “&” and “‘n”? and (b), seems to assume that in the event Stoller has rights in that name, she would be willing to have its distinctiveness frittered away by sales of t-shirts, etc. Maybe she is, and maybe she’s licensing all these groups. I don’t know.

This recent activity strangely coincides with Stoller’s Monday deadline to file a response with the USPTO about the non-registrability of her trademarks (due to confusion with STITCH & BITCH CAFE, as you might recall). If she misses it, that’s okay, a response can be filed a bit late, although the USPTO database may show her application as “dead” in the meantime.

The prior history, in reverse chron: here, here, here (just a little background info), here, here, and finally here.

Wow, that’s a lot. The “useful arts” category was supposed to be about craft-related patents. I need to make up a new category.

Edit: A missive from Deb Stoller to all those affected is reproduced here, as well as in the comments to this post. She’s recommending the prefix SNB. This reminds me of the time that an agent of the LSD made the amusing claim that even using the intials AS was somehow an incursion into A Somebody’s trademark rights.

Oh, and the forum on SFSE’s website now has a section where individuals can help each other find a SNB group. The heading: “Stitch and Bitch Group” and the description, “If you want to find a group, post here.” Currently no posts. Is this a way for SFSE to find other unsuitably-named groups?

I need to finish writing the next instalment about the great online-magazine-no-compensation-for-value toboggan ride.

The cape in the December 9 entry is the crochet version of the LB Homespun cape that was on the “fake” advertisement cover of Vogue Knitting (the issue that looked like it had a purple thing on the cover, when the real cover was that bulky orange thing).