Joel Spolsky wrote about an interesting limitation that he encountered when choosing a cover design for his book:

"And although they would not put a doggie on the cover of my book as I requested, because a certain other book publisher threatens to sue his competitors when they put anything animal like within 90 feet of their covers, their graphic designer worked overtime to create underground cover art called "User Interface Design for Doggies" complete with three golden retrievers, which they framed and sent to me. All in all a classy operation and highly recommended if you're thinking of writing a computer book."

The publisher is, of course, O'Reilly Media. The are famous for publishing computer programming books with engravings of animals on the covers. Like any programmer's, my bookshelf holds a pretty sizable zoo of these critters. The question that always comes to mind is what guides the selection - how the publisher decides which animal to match with which technology. Here's what O'Reilly editors say:

"Our look is the result of reader comments, our own experimentation, and feedback from distribution channels. Distinctive covers complement our distinctive approach to technical topics, breathing personality and life into potentially dry subjects."

Well, with some books it's clear - a spider for a webmaster book and a python for a Python book, for instance. But why does the Perl book have a camel? Wouldn't an oyster make a lot more sense?

Update: Joe Grossberg commented that camel was chosen "because Perl uses camelCase for capitalizing variables". John (website or last name not included) said that "camel was picked for Perl because of the quip that it was a 'horse designed by a committee'". I like John's version much better :)

Joe also started a Wikipedia article on the subject.

One of the more understandable conventions is using Javan animals on Java-related books. For instance, the Java book has a Javan tiger and the JavaScript book has a Javan rhino.

O'Reilly colophons rarely give too much insight into why that particular animal was chosen for the cover, but sometimes you might read between the lines:

"Like the crustaceans after which they are named, crab spiders walk sideways or backwards. They feed on bees and other pollenizing insects, often laying in wait for them by hiding on flowers."

"Both male and female pythons retain vestiges of their ancestral hind legs. The male python uses these vestiges, or spurs, when courting a female"

"Folklore has long held that the horn of the rhinoceros possesses magical and aphrodisiacal powers, and that humans who gain possession of the horns will gain those powers, also."

"Tigers are the largest of all cats, weighing up to 660 pounds and with a body length of up to 9 feet. They are solitary animals, and, unlike lions, hunt alone.
...
There are some tigers, however, who have developed a taste for human flesh. This is a particularly bad problem in an area of India and Bangladesh called the Sunderbans."

The ironic thing is, Javan tigers are extinct and there are only about 100 Javan rhinos remaining. Is that a dig at these languages?

One of the most ironic, yet clearly unintentional choices was that of a stingray for the cover of ASP.NET in a Nutshell.

As you might have noticed, for all my ranting about redesigns, I went ahead and redesigned my own site. It took me all of 3 hours. I changed the template a bit, fixed a nasty Wordpress search bug that inserted unsightly escape characters into search strings, changed all the urls for more search engine friendly ones (while preserving all the original ones) and made navigation arrows a bit more consistent. Fascinating stuff, isn't it? This is all a part of my effort to finally get over the thousand reader mark on the Feedburner counter. It stands at 915 today (and I used that counter graphic as one of my Optimus Mini's applets).

I get a lot of Google and Google images traffic, as my humble blog is the second search result for "starbucks logo". After reading my article about the Starbucks Melusine, most visitors just scamper away. I realized that I need some kind of a hook at the end of the page. I added the easy subscribe buttons, links to del.icio.us , Digg, Reddit and Netscape and a sampling of what I think are some of my better posts.

What I think are my better posts are, probably is not what you, the readers, think. So, if I may be so bold, please tell me what posts do you think should make "Best of Deadprogrammer" list, as well, as which particular post made you subscribe to my rss feed (or to bookmark my site). Also, in an effort to overcome the 1K reader barrier, I will even stoop so low, as to ask all of you for a link, if you can spare one. The thousand reader barrier must be broken.

Speaking of statistics, here's a comparison of Feedburner's breakdown. Since 2005 I went from 47 readers to 915. I am surprised to see a decrease in Livejournal readers since I quit it. Well, what can you do. I think I should give up my blog and move to Myspace. That's where all the cool kids are and where most of my image traffic is coming from, even after I played a bit of a trick on them.

In my career as a web development I've seen a lot of brilliant and competent people, as well as a lot of utter incompetents, on all levels of the corporate ladder and working at all levels of productivity. Basically, if I were to make a competence scale, it would look something like this:

- <--10-9-8-7-6-4-5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10--> +

Let's say user data release by AOL would rate at negative 7; setting out to rewrite Netscape from scratch at negative 9; changing all the links of an established website in the name of SEO at negative 5; writing tons of spaghetti code that nevertheless functions and serves users at positive 1; coming up with PageRank algorithm and implementing it -- at positive 10. There are also those who come into the office and do nothing at all - that's 0. Ase we all seem to notice and remember negative things better than positive, sometimes corporate life seems like one big orgy of incompetence and bad ideas.

I've long had a theory, why even with so many negative contributions, American companies mostly prosper and thrive, despite incompetency. To explain it, I usually use an ant metaphor. See, when ants are carrying a bug or a caterpillar back to the nest, they almost always succeed. But the thing is, they do not cooperate very well. They all have different ideas about which way to pull, and some, instead of helping, actually climb on the cargo or collide with other ants. Others just watch from the sidelines and generally mill about. But even though ants pull in different directions, the resulting force vector generally leads to the nest, and the caterpillar gets there eventually.

Recently, an article about a designer Paul Frank caught my attention. He is fighting his former business partners who jettisoned him from the company bearing his name. He came up with the design ideas that made the company what it is, as well as lent it his name. The business partners accused him of not contributing to the daily business grind, bought out his shares and either fired him or drove him to resigning (depends on whose story you listen to). It's getting nasty:

" "Those guys are saying Paul Frank is not a person," says the designer, whose given name is Paul Frank Sunich. "I hear they're all wearing T-shirts that say 'We Are Paul Frank.' Well, you're Paul Frank Industries. You're not Paul Frank."

I've seen the monkey design that Paul Frank is so famous for, but did not know that it was a multimillion dollar business. Apparently it's very popular - and I definitely do believe that both the business partners that made this quirky brand into such a powerhouse and the guy who conceived it made positive contributions.

What I have the issue with is the person who's running their web department. It's not even the unusable obnoxious flash-ridden websites that don't work in Firefox. It's the fact that this person apparently never did something very basic - typed in "Paul Frank" into Google. Because when you do, you get this as a first result:

I don't have a problem with the programmer who used a stock client detection script from somewhere. We all do that. But putting "Client Detection Script" as the title of the first page of your site is rather idiotic. And nobody at the company even searched for "Paul Frank" in Google, even if to see what other Paul Franks there are out there!

Getting back to my ant theory, squabbles, badly designed websites and all those people who prolifically do bad things are balanced out by things done right. The website may suck, but the brand is so good that people will put up with it. Individual ants might be doing stupid and counterproductive things, but it all gets balanced out. The caterpillar gets dragged into the nest, whether it wants it or not.