-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:04:32 -0800,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <cl2u35-0cg.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> it's not the study that's being objected to, is my impression from the
>> post, but the payment for it.
>
> But it is only being objected to when MS does it, not when Sun or IBM or
> Apple do it. It's perfectly normal to give the participants in a
> usability study (or pretty much any other kind of study that takes more
> than a few minutes time and is done at your facility) some freebies,
> such as software.
>
Then your position should have been (imho) that there was nothing wrong
with it. Not "neener neener they do it too, jump on them"
For me, I don't care either way, as long as all the relevant details are
released. I don't care that a private company tries to buy votes from a
consumer with freebies. That's free market. Doing same with a standards
body is a bit different, but is another discussion.
> This is simply another example of Roy purposefully being misleading
> about Microsoft. He posts a few links arguing that they improperly have
> paid people, and then he throws in that story, about a usability study
> for some software related to blogging, and does it such a way as to try
> to give the impression that it means MS is bribing bloggers to control
> their writing.
>
The Ferrari laptop thing was pretty blatant, and was condemned on all
sides. Handing someone a free copy of your flagship Office software in
return for a review is one thing, handing out a top of the line gaming
laptop is a bit different in appearance don't you think?
> He does this a lot--put one or two articles in a post that support his
> point, and then throw in others that have nothing to do with it, but
> that, by careful manipulation, will LOOK like they do if you just skim
> past them (which is what most people will do). The result is that the
> reader that doesn't actually check everything out will get the
> impression that Roy has many references backing up his point, when in
> fact he has one or two, at most.
>
I mostly skip Roy's news posts, I find them repetitive and often
inaccurate, that has nothing to do with this (sub) discussion however. I
do the same with Rex, but that doesn't mean that everyone who disagrees
with Rex is right, or that I will ignore sub threads that spin off when
they interest me.
Don't make the mistake Erik has made of thinking (or stating) that
because I don't comment on something I must agree with it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHbahWd90bcYOAWPYRAijNAKCY2f8kzDB5NfmDV/vtDnQDeel0KQCeIXd+
h0NXkqwO4gjBt7f1Vh9rIQE=
=xXFy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Do I LOOK like a damn people person?
|
|
