I use Xing to manage some of my business contacts and even some friends have profiles there as well.
The default size of contact's pictures displayed on one's Xing homepage is 18x24px. On a higher dpi screens, you can thus barely recognize the person shown. As there are multiple sizes of all images available, it's pretty easy to just take (for example) http://www.xing.com/img/users/d/f/1/f34814409.5648827_s1.jpg, remove the _s1 and see a 140x185px version of the picture.
Greasemonkey, a Firefox extension to run user specified scripts on selected pages that you visit, can automate this with a nice script from user louis to download here. Or my updated version here.*
So, everytime I now hover my mouse over a tiny Xing thumbnail, it will show the "full resolution" version of the image. Simple, efficient.
Update
* Xing changed it's image naming scheme a bit, so one needs an updated Greasemonkey script for all images to work again. Link inserted into the article text ("Or my updated version here.")
Eric Möller has published his report on the Wikimedia 2007/2008 fundraiser. I found it because he hotlinked one of the images that I created for my detailed analysis. His report lists some interesting new information:
- Wikimedia got $50,000 in Google stock from another - yet again - anonymous donor.
- The Wikimedia chapters (local organisation units e.g. in Germany or France) have collected nearly $250,000 in their fundraisers (mostly in Germany). The Germans buy stuff of their own from the money. Only the Swiss donated 25% of their raised budget back to Wikimedia foundation. Eric explains: "The lack of a clear understanding between chapters and the Foundation about the role and responsibilities of the different entities in the fundraising process is an additional impediment. For example: Should chapters share fundraising revenue with the Foundation, and if so, how? [..] The German chapter has an informal agreement with the Foundation to invest half of its fundraising revenue in ways directly benefiting WMF projects."
- Eric says it was not intended to raise the full $4.6m. Somehow people just mis-interpreted the fundraiser that way: "The publication of the planned spending was misunderstood by some to indicate that the fundraiser's goal was to raise 4.6 million dollars. [...] Inquiries related to the actual financial target of the fundraiser were less common, probably in large part due to the publication of the Foundation's planned spending."
The report is extremly low on self-criticism. There is no insight visable that not giving a financial target was a major bummer or that the general intransparency, unprofessional communication and amateurish reporting on financial issues was keeping many people from donating. Nothing about missing the 100,000 donors target, either. There is not a word on the webcomics deletion issues and the subsequent call by the webcomics community to boycot the fundraiser or the scandal around hiring a convicted felon as COO because of unprofessional HR work. Not a word on the ridiculous "dinner with Jimmy Wales" for people donating $25,000. Nobody even donated $10,001.
"Also, given that most of the viewers of the planned spending distribution had no financial background, the level of explanations given was probably not sufficient." Come on, Eric, the people with financial background are not even considering the published material as "planning".
And next time, please link a blog entry and not some graphics. Criticism is healthy. Let people develop an opinion of their own. Try putting a "public criticism" section into your report. It will definitely add to the report's credibility.
Update
03.02.08: Eric has ammended information from the Italian chapter. They raised around $3,000 and forwarded it all to Wikimedia foundation.
