Tiling the Kitchen Floor

Posted in DIY with tags , , , , , , , , on August 29, 2015 by Lance Strzok

Finished the kitchen floor finally.  It was a fair bit of work to complete it, and like all other construction projects, there were some challenges that popped up.

20150807_142116 This is the floor when we started to pull up the two layers of linoleum flooring that were previously laid down. (Day 1).

Getting the floor up.

Getting the floor up.

This took a couple of days and was harder in some areas than others. (Approximately day 2).

20150813_110452 This was the floor after getting the other two layers of flooring up and putting down the Hardibacker boards and cutting them to fit while also staggering the edges and corners. This does not have thinset and has not been screwed in yet, that’s next. (Approximately day 3).

20150814_082553 This is the Hardibacker with screws, on top of thinset, and with the seams taped and covered with more thinset. (Approximately day 4).

20150815_000442This is with the room measured and centered with slight adjustments so that ends line up with the far wall and nearly half of a tile width is on each side. This is to ensure that you don’t have to cut lots of really thin pieces on one side and really wide ones on the other. These are the full tiles that have no cuts and are laid down first. (Approximately day 5).

20150822_092601This is with all of the cut pieces in place. I rented a tile saw from Ace Hardware for one day for $50.00 to cut the tiles. (Approximately day 6).

20150823_184500This is with the grout in place. (Approximately day 8).

Have cut some temporary transitions between the rooms adjacent to the kitchen, and I will do some more and stain them to match the other rooms where it matters.

Some lessons learned from this:

Ensure the floor is level before laying down thinset and Hardibacker board.

Sand down or lower the seams, otherwise they become fulcrums for the tiles and cause some edges to he higher than others if you don’t take extra care to embed them with the thinset when laying the tile.

Making sure the tiles are level as you go will help ensure that the grout insert and wipe up goes smoothly. This is where you will find your unlevel tiles.

Clean the grout up as you work, don’t let is sit long, it is hard work to get the grout off if you let it dry for too long.

I have heard that at the moment, the labor for this job runs about $7.50 per square foot, and then add materials. So we saved about $1500.00 by doing the work ourselves.

We wish you the best with your tile projects, and we’d be happy to share or answer questions with you if you have any. Cheers!

The best resources I found to guide my work efforts were on YouTube, especially the Home Depot DIY videos.


Public or Private Cord Blood Banking – an important decision.

Posted in medical with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 23, 2013 by Lance Strzok

Public or Private Cord Blood Banking – an important decision. Feb 2013
We started taking birthing classes with our hospital about half way through our pregnancy. In several of our classes questions on the topic of cord blood banking came up. It was clear that there were several things we needed to understand to make an informed decision; primarily ethical, religious, financial, and medical.

A key understanding is that there are different kinds of stem cells. The focus of this article is about cord blood stem cells. Although there is controversy on the topic of embryonic stem cell research, there is little controversy over cord blood stem cells and cord blood banking, as the cord and its blood are part of our bodies, and taking the stem cells from the cord that would otherwise be discarded after birth in no way harms the baby or mother.

With regard to religion, there are several that take issue with embryonic stem cell research, but few if any that oppose cord blood stem cell research. (Bishops). This finding answered our question on where our faith stood, and a visit with your religious leader or a search on your religion and its position on the various types of stem cell research should answer any questions you have.

Current research with cord blood stem cells show promise in the treatment of: AIDS, Alzheimer’s Disease, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Liver Disease, Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson’s Disease, Spinal Cord Injury, and Stroke.

Diseases that have already been treated with cord blood stem cells include: Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Acute Myelogenous Leukemia, Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia, Adrenoleukodystrophy, Alpha Mannosidosis, alpha-Thalassemia HbH constant spring, Amegakaryocy, Anaplastic Lymphoma, Aplasia, Aplastic Anemia, Biphenotypic Leukemia, Burkitt’s Lymphoma, Chediak-Higashi Syndrome, Chronic Granulomatous Disease, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, Congenital Neutropenia, Di¬use Large B-Cell Lymphoma, Dyskeratosis Congenita, Familial Lymphohistiocytosis, Fanconi Anemia, Hemophagocytic Lymphohistiocytosis, Histiocytosis, Hodgkin’s Disease, Hunter’s Syndrome, Hurler’s Syndrome, Hyper IgM Syndrome, I Cell Disease (Leroy Disease), Juvenile Myeloid Leukemia, Juvenile Myelomonocytic Leukemia, Kostmann Syndrome, Krabbe Disease, Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis, Leukodystrophy, Mantle Cell Lymphoma, Mycosis Fungoides, Myelodysplastic Disorder, Myelofibrosis, Neuroblastoma, Niemann-Pick Disease, Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, Osteopetrosis, Plasmocyte Leukemia, Polycythemia Vera, Refractory Anemia, Sandhoff Disease, Scleroderma, Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (SCID), Sickle Cell Disease, T-Cell Immunodeficiency, Thalassemia, and Wiskott Aldrich Syndrome. Additional changes to the list above and updates can be viewed at the source listed here: http://www.stemcyte.com/scf-diseases-treated

Considering the value and potential of cord blood stem cell research and goals, it became clear that of the three options; 1) discard the umbilical cord blood, 2) private cord blood banking, 3) public cord blood banking, we would want the cord blood used for something rather than be discarded. Now we were down to public or private cord blood banking. The remaining questions were; what were the differences between the two in terms of access to it for personal use, and, the difference in cost?

The primary differences between public and private cord blood banking are access and cost. With public cord blood banking you don’t pay for anything, but there is no guarantee that your cord blood will be available to you if you need it in the future. Your cord blood stem cells are listed in a national registry, and if there is a patient being treated and the cord blood you donated is a good match, it may be used to treat that person. However, if you come down with a treatable illness and your cord blood has not been used, it is still available to you to use to treat your illness.

With private cord blood banking, you pay a fee to guarantee access to your sample of cord blood if you or a family member is diagnosed with a disease that is treatable with your cord blood, you have access to it.
Deciding between public or private cord blood banking should include a look at both parents family medical histories to determine if there are any diseases that are prevalent in your family. Then compare any diseases you find with those that are treatable with cord blood cells. This should give you a strong indication of the likelihood of needing access to your specific sample in the future, and help you decide whether the risk is worth the cost.

As of Feb, 2010, a public cord blood donation is free, while a donation to a private company is roughly $1,500.00 with an additional annual frozen storage maintenance fee of $75.00 per year.

Additional considerations include;

1) Make this decision and contact the group you would like to donate to by the 30th week of your pregnancy because you need to have a kit sent to your house and fill out some paperwork with regard to your background. This is especially true if you want to do a public cord blood banking because there are more questions about family history of disease that need to be understood in order to have your cord blood listed in the national registry. Beyond 30 weeks you really only have the private cord blood option.

2) For public cord blood banking, the hospital will have to take more blood samples at birth in order to list your blood in the national registry whereas there may only be one blood sample taken for a private banking.

3) As for the cord blood extraction itself, the doctors explained that there was little difference in what they were asked to do.

4) With public cord blood banking, after the baby is born you (or someone you designate) will be responsible for shipping the sample back to the research institution in a timely manner using a prepaid container that is sent to you. With private cord blood banking, there may be someone that picks up the sample after birth and ships it to the storage facility. In our case, it was a Federal Express prepaid sticker on a red sample storage container that we took to a local Federal Express office that was suited to accept these shipments. Further conversations with Federal Express personnel indicated that a truck goes to our hospital every day except Sunday, and that those packages can be put on those trucks. So check with your hospital beforehand, it might save you from having to leave your new bundle of joy for a while to deliver the sample.

After taking into consideration the risks, costs, and benefit to society, our decision was to donate our cord blood to a public cord blood bank. We found lists of public and private cord blood banking locations, and ultimately chose to use the Carolinas Cord Blood Bank – http://www.cancer.duke.edu/ccbb/contribute.asp to give our cord blood donation to.

In closing, we hope to raise awareness of these two options, and would like to encourage all couples to choose either private or public cord banking over discarding the cord blood. Please share this information with family and friends to help raise awareness of this choice. There is simply a lot of good that it can be used for in developing and treating illness, now and in the future.


Cord Blood – Wikipedia 15 Feb 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood

Stem Cell – Wikipedia 15 Feb 2013, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell

Carolinas Cord Blood Bank http://www.cancer.duke.edu/ccbb/contribute.asp

Bishops, United States Conference of Catholic. Catholic Support for Ethically Acceptable Stem Cell Research. 9 February 2013. 9 February 2013.

More information can be found:

Carolinas Cord Blood Bank http://www.cancer.duke.edu/ccbb/contribute.asp

Additional articles http://www.cancer.duke.edu/ccbb/articles.asp

Cord blood stem cells http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cord_blood

Tragic Event Today

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , on December 14, 2012 by Lance Strzok

Today we all heard of the tragedy of another mass gun shooting in a school. It is extremely sad, and many of us feel for those who have lost loved ones, and as a father of two beautiful teenagers, and another on the way, preventing this from happening again quickly comes to mind.

I am sure that the idea of controlling access to guns is one approach, however, it is my belief that criminals will always get a gun if they need it.

Another approach would be to make it a job requirement of school personnel to have access to, and be trained in basic gun use. Let’s face it, most teachers care about their students, and especially teachers of those young ones that can not defend themselves. I used to have a job with annual gun refresher training, and I believe that if more teachers had access to a gun in class if or when needed, along with regular training, when these moments take place I would prefer that some of them would have the opportunity to stand up to the violence and protect those that they teach and protect.

If I were a teacher, I would gladly accept that responsibility.

I understand that not all would, but in many of these cases, there are so few actual people involved, that a single person in the right place, at the right time with a weapon they know how to use – could end the violence quickly.

I don’t want to see a knee jerk response that makes getting guns into normal peoples hands harder, and I would be happy to see that energy spent on legislation encouraging our teachers to take on that responsibility.

Furthermore, not just teachers, but legislation that supports most competent people that would act – to be allowed to do so.

My heart goes out to the many that lost loved ones today in Connecticut. God bless, and you are in my prayers.

Merry Christmas – with a little something else

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , on November 22, 2012 by Lance Strzok

For those of you that are curious, good friends of mine, or someone in my extended family, I am Catholic, and I celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday on December 25th.

On that day and leading up to that day, I may well wish you a Merry Christmas, and it would come from a desire to share one of the joys of my faith with you and others around me.

In recognizing which religious days are important to me, in no way diminishes from your choice of faith or religious following. It does not presume that you are Catholic, Christian, or of any particular faith – it is simply me sharing some of my joy with you. I should simply hope that I come to know you well enough to understand which days of the year are of importance to you so that I may in turn recognize your celebration of those days as well.

So why the hesitation with Merry Christmas?

I believe that it comes down to this question; Does replying with a “Merry Christmas to you too” imply anything about you?

It could, but of course there is language that could remove that ambiguity if you would choose to use it. I think I’ll share a couple of ideas on removing ambiguity and strengthening the reply.

1. As a Christian celebrating the same wonderful day, Merry Christmas to you too.
2. As a Catholic celebrating Christmas, Merry Christmas to you as well.
3. Although I am an atheist, Merry Christmas to you.
4. As a (…name of your religion…) not sharing the same religious holidays, Merry Christmas.

I think with a little more thought, you might come up with something that feels right for you.

So to wrap things up –

I would prefer Merry Christmas or one of the other statements above over “Happy holidays”. I just feel like “Happy holidays” waters down several very special occasions, and lumps together Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Years. Surely we can find language to express something for each of those days.

In closing this post-

I share the joy of knowing that a truly wonderful day of celebration is coming, and the spirit of it is already alive and well within me.

Furthermore, it is not likely that I will be inspired to write much more in the next month or so, so I’ll do this now (a month early).

Merry Christmas,

Podcast and Screencast Results / Justification

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , , , , , , on September 29, 2011 by Lance Strzok

So I looked over some stats with respect to the podcast and screencast work that I have been doing.

Why podcast and screencast?

Podcast – The driving factor on the podcast was primarily in understanding that there was a lot of command information coming in from across various channels. Newsletter, email, email, and announcements, internal portal, did I mention email? And to stay informed meant checking in a lot of places. The bulk of them were unclassified in nature, and could be aggregated in one location (the podcast). So why then a podcast? Part two of that question was a matter of time. Even if I knew where to look, how much time did I have to read the content of all that information? Once at work, time is usually somewhat limited, so in my quest for free time, I realized that my 1.4 hour commute was some time that I might consider sharing. As it is, I listen to a couple of stations, but for the most part, the weather, news, and market are quick, so I ended up listening to podcasts on technology and science. The point is that I gladly listened to more information because driving time was usually something I could and would easily share. Thinking this could be true for others, (average commute in DC per NPR news article is about 45 minutes each way every day), I wanted to see if people would get past the small technology barrier of getting the information from the network, onto a device that they could listen to in the car on the way to work or heading home. In this way, if we could aggregate the information for employees, and make it easy to access and listen to on time they have, they may choose to do so.

Screencast – The primary driver on the screencast was reusability. If there was a question or procedure that could be shared or demonstrated once, then people to use it to learn new skills, or be reminded of how to do it if they forget. I started to think of it as self help that people could get too before heading to the actual help desk. One of the reasons behind this was to reduce the number of classroom demonstrations I was doing, but also so I could spend my time making new content about plenty of other worthwhile topics and demonstrations. In addition to this, people could get it on demand, during their lunch break when they want to sit back in their chair and watch a “howto” video on “searching SharePoint” or one of several topics. I like to do this at home, watch a Youtube video on how to derive equations of motion while eating fried chicken. You get the point.

As for the results – just the numbers.

Over the time period of March to October;

I created roughly 21 podcasts with approximately 3445 downloads, and

I created roughly 45 screencasts, with a total of 3972 views.

On the surface, it is not apparent that I am getting the results I was looking for, and so I began to speculate about what some of the factors might be. This being driven by a recent question with regard to continuing to create them or not.

I have done a weekly podcast since about May of this year, and to date, across all the locations that I made it available, I think roughly 3200 downloads have been recorded. I have a few folks from time to time thank me for an article or two, but for the most part, those are the only numbers I can get.

I have been asking for more ideas/desired stories, in the emails that I send out with the weekly contents and to date, I have had only one person respond with a suggestion.

So what do I think were some of the challenges?

Marketing – When I asked people if they knew about it, if they were not on the weekly email list, then they did not. So I am not sure that they were being forwarded to anyone else beyond the people on the immediate list of recipients. I did not do any other marketing of my own, but in retrospect, I could have made fliers, and discussed the merits of how to effectively use it.

Accessibility – I think that having to have it on a network that required a user log in and password was a hurdle because many people just don’t want to create an account for what they view will be one benefit. Too many passwords already, and I can relate. A recommendation on this would be to grow our NIPRNET presence to allow for one log in that grants you access to email, and a few key services – one of which could be the aggregated weekly podcast.

Re-posted – I was asked to post it on a different network, and as soon as I did that, more people viewed it on the new network, but it totally defeated the premise for putting it on the original network in the first place.

Consistent – I think I lost some followership when I did not post for a week or another because I was on leave or unable to do so. This may have also been a factor.

Content – As much as I ask for ideas, I received only one in the 6 months I was making the podcasts. So the content was all original in terms of what I shared, discussed, or posted. Most of the content was stuff that employees would get in email and across disparate mechanisms, but aggregating it in the podcast seemed like a good idea.

Timing – I am not sure that our workforce today is as active in the media environment as we could be, or in my humble opinion, should be. There is also not a drive to move in that direction present, so there is only personal initiative or interest to explore alternative sharing mechanisms. Put another way, it is my belief that not many in our workforce use their smartphones to download and sync podcasts that they can listen to while they are at home. If we made this easier – it would help to demonstrate the value. I believe that over time, as more people get used to using the technology for information on demand, that this will change – but we’re just not there yet.

Now, all that being said, the question posed to me was – what kind of followership did I build up, and should this production effort be sustained?

I am afraid that I cannot answer that at this time. There is too little information to make a decision. I think the next question should be – do we market this from a leadership position, and present it as one way to aggregate information, with the option of those other mechanisms staying in place and simply using a unique identifier with those other items that would allow someone that chooses to listen to the podcast, to sort into a folder, those items that would normally end up in their input streams so that they don’t end up having to read or listen to them more than once.

As for content, the challenges that remain are getting people in those various channels of production to modify what they do only slightly to share what they are already doing, and minimize redundancy in information.

My recommendations:

With workforce input, develop a clear plan on what kind of content you want to aggregate, (added benefit of advertising this cooperatively developed product).

Host the content on the NIPRNET behind the same login as email to remove the need for separate login, and find ways to make syncing the content as easy as possible for both phone and desk/lap-top computers.

After aggregating it, tag the initial source location and products in a way that will allow people that choose to listen to the podcast to not have the information come again through the original channel – or if it does – can be auto-foldered into a location out of the workflow, (this is an effort to reduce duplication.

Revisit the content discussion on a quarterly basis, and make sure that there is a mechanism that is collocated with the download that allows for feedback and input (like – link to the podcast from a blog).

Try to get to more of an interview style podcast, not just a news podcast of someone reading the headlines. Different voices, debated views, etc… That will develop more interest and followership. In addition, if you have a section that reviews pertinent comments from the commenting mechanism – that will allow users to see how their input can effect the process and their voice can be heard.

I enjoyed the opportunity to run this experiment. I thank Jack Gumtow (CIO) for the opportunity to do this, and learn from it in doing so. I hope my sharing some of this information helps others, and I am open for questions or comments.

I would happily help anyone interested in starting or maintaining an effort similar to this one.


Lance Strzok

Journalists vs Analysts

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , , , , , , , on August 31, 2011 by Lance Strzok

I get the impression that a lot of analysts try to be journalists, and it got me thinking that maybe the road ahead is to actually make journalists within the IC.

How do analysts differ from journalists? The most obvious differences are level of knowledge on a subject, and objectivity. It is my beliefthat most analysts are pretty deep in tbrms of knowledge with respect to the subject matter they write on, and as human nature would have it, they are pretty attJched to their judgments on the things that they write about and don’t necessarily seek out others to collaborate with or open theclselves up to disagreement.

Journalists on the other hand, appear to me to be openly shallow in most subject areas that th~y write on when compared to analysts,but they seem more ethically bound to deliver balanced reporting on a subject after interviewing various analysts and SME’s for onions on the matter from various angles. In this way, the various sides of the story, and the drivers and stakeholders all get some kind of view represented in the report. (Want to highlight a little with respect tel differing motives and abilities here, depth of knowledge differences, motives differences, and objectivity or cognitive dissonance impacts as well as how each potential role might yield a different result).

So taking much of what I mention above as true, I ask, “what if the Ie had journalists that were directed to write reports, with deadlines, and had to find and interview analysts across the Ie, DoD, legal, state, local, academic, and others areas in order to more fully cover a topic? That would leave more emphasis properly placed on analysts to do their job of maintaining facts and forming and defending positions, rather then writing reports and adding to the noise. In addition to this, it would tend to have a positive influence on relationships between analysts an their willingness to collaborate when they start to see the influence that their argument held up, or not, who agreed with them, who did not and why. All these are good things in my mind and might alleviate some of the agency vs agency stuff that seems to eat away at the collective effort.
Now I believe that we have the tools to author joint products, like Living Intelligence, Intellipublia, and more, but how we would task this group of Ie level Journalists is another matter to consider. I am less certain about a common tasking system that would allow the head of the journalists to direct efforts against stories in a way that would meet intelligence requirements of all those that are submitting Intelligence requirements to different requirements processes. That being said, if we were going to make this group of journalists, then we could ptobably set up some folks that know how to direct this kind of activity and are familiar with the groups out there, and the general types of requirements that are needed such that they could direct journalists to meet them.

So in short, there would be analysts, sme’s and journalists. A directing mechanism for the journalists that takes input from key stakeholders, and a truly joint product that woul:d have the names of the analysts and agencies that contributed to them, thereby reducing the number of redundant reports that are created, and fostering the kind of collaboration and solid products that I believe we should be creating as a community.
I would think that creating this group and giving them the charter and responsibilities to do this job would be more likely than analysts all across the community getting reallylgood at collaborating and sharing in that way that we have hoped. Again, the difference in motivation and bias may be slowing or preventing the achievement of the environment we are trying to create.

Please let me know what you think.

Some responses from another area are below.

(Reader 1) I read a lot of topical blogs written by journalists, and I have say for many of them, I hold their analysis in higher esteem
than much of what I read in finished intelligence. Now, journalists are just as capable of having biases, but most of
them state it up front, or you can tell it by whom they are writing for. I think professional journalists are better at writing a tight storyline, keeping to the narrative, and in many cases offer interesting insights that many others would miss.

(Reader 2) I have to respectfully disagree. Some contemporary journalists seem to publish opinion pieces under the heading of articles. I have seen instances that present as the journalist going into the process of reporting with their own agenda instead of being objective. In this age of computers and instant gratification it also seems in trying to reduce the reporting to the short time span it’s presented in, the message is often distorted or lost entirely. The dearth of print media and conglomeration of newspapers further reduces the impact of responsible journalism. I am not saying this is necessarily the fault of the journalist, it’s the just the system they are forced to operate within. Don’t get me wrong, there are responsible journalists out there but there are many sloppy ones as well.
So too is the analyst field. But this is a problem of our own making. For too many years the attitude of “knowledge is
power” and each agency’s artificial stovepiping discouraged the sharing of information. This attitude became ingrained
and as we all know it is hard to change as human nature, as well as corporate mindset attests. As a result the problem
becomes not so much as how to share but in finding out who is working on what. Reinventing the wheel became
commonplace,. Then too the lack of social media skills among the older generation of analysts further compounded the
But programs like this blog for example s~gnal a change in direction. Education is the key. The newer analysts are more
comfortable using social media in their daily life so it translates easily into their analytical practices. Now it is a matter of
“advertising” who is doing what in the various agencies so that connections can be made between analysts. In addition, no
competent analyst should be producing arliyfinished intelligence without it being vetted. This is just common sense in my opinion. Are we going to have an opinio~? Yes. Are we going to possibly resent criticism? Again, yes. This is human
nature. I truly believe the vast majority0tanalysts today get the fact that producing for production’s sake is not
appropriate. We hopefully realize each intlividual is ultimately responsible for each and every call and their decision could ultimately affect the very lives of the indiliduals using it. I would hope they would do their very best and ensure it is the most accurate infonnationlanalysis possib e. Bottom line if you are putting your name to it, don’t you want to make sure you get it right?

(Reader 3) Interesting thoughts, Lance.
Reminds me of the mix between bloggers and what they call “Developer Advocates” or what not in the software world. As
this whole Internet-hosted, “cloud” and Iaas/Paas/Saas thing has taken off, there’s a lot more direct interaction between a
company and an individual delevoper.
So where you previously had tech Journalists reporting at magazines like Dr. Dobbs, and then tech bloggers like
TechCrunch, ReadWriteWeb, etc, you nor also have people working at cloud hosting companies that write articles or
screencasts on what their company provides.
I guess they are technically marketing/sales folks, but they are similar to a cross between a journalist and an analyst in that they might not be a SME, but they aren’t teallY just offering quick/shallow news articles, either.
Personally, from my limited viewpoint, I itill don’t really care for this idea of news-reporting style analysis, where an
article comes, goes and never gets update1 or pointed to again and that’s where LivingJntcJ really seems like a great idea.
But I can definitely see the need for someone who acts a a go-between for analysts who are too busy/too involved to sit
and chat it out with others every day, or ate naturally better at quiet thinking and research, versus interviewing or
collaborating across issues.
That’s why I dropped out of my own journalism ideals back in college – trying to get people to talk to me was a pain (and
scared me), whereas messing with a computer was a whole lot easier.

(Reader 4) +1 to james. Saying analysts need to be more like journalists in order to incorporate more balance is like saying chocolate needs to be more like vanilla in order to be more chocolatey.

(Reader 5) It is my belief that most analysts are pret deep in terms of knowledge with respect to the subject matte’ they write on” Man, I would love to work where you work.

Beyond Facebook’s “like” or Google’s “plus1” buttons

Posted in Web2.0 Productivity with tags , , , , , , , on July 27, 2011 by Lance Strzok

There is some value in a like or plus1 button, it is easy and quick to indicate to others that you somehow agreed with the content, but it would certainly have more value to others, yourself, and potentially both Facebook and Google if you could have a pop up when you hover over the button, and select from a list of options what it is about the object that you want to categorize it with. Furthermore, if you hovered over one of the menu items, a final menu could come up with something similar to a Likert scale of 1-5 after each item (ie Agree 1=slightly agree, 3=agree, 5=definitely agree) & so on. (Thx Che)

Some ideas on the categories behind the “like or plus1” could be:








Check Facts (Thx Che)

Biased (Thx Che)

Having this option would help in categorizing content, and help others to understand why you hit the button in the first place. Although as (Jack) points out, not all things will warrant a comment, but it would be nice to be able to do so if you were so compelled.

Apparently Slashdot has done something similar to this, and it appears to have worked very well for them. (Thx Robert R.)

With that being said, what would you want to see as options to tag it with, and would you take that moment to do so?