On 2007-10-17, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Sorry about the recent potsing volume. I'm catching up with last week's news as
> well (plenty of great progress for Linux!), so there's a little more to pass
> on. :-)
Have you considered going for more quality, rather than more quantity?
Several times, you've posted "news" concerning things that I've been
involved in, where I have access to non-public information, and your
accuracy has been very poor in these cases. Wouldn't it be better to
post, say, 10 *accurate* news items a week, instead of 100 items of
which 90% are questionable?
A lot of your items fall victim to what I call the blog effect. What
happens is that *one* blog posts a bit of speculation, or otherwise
posts something that turns out not to be accurate. Other bloggers read
it, and some post about it. Others read those, and some of those blog,
and so on. Once you get past the first level, you start losing some of
the paths back to the original. So you end up with blogs repeating the
original item, saying that they got it from several blogs, and that
gives the impression that there are independent sources for the
item--but it all goes back to one, unverified, source.
And nowadays, all the major tech news outlets ALSO have blogs, so people
read something on a CNET or Wired blog, say, and then when they blog
about it, they say "CNET is reporting that...", and this adds further
credibility in the mind of subsequent readers--they think the blogger is
reporting on a news story from CNET, not on a random CNET blog entry.
|
|
