__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 26 January 2007 07:42 \__
> begin oe_protect.scr
> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:50:03 +0000, Mark Kent wrote:
>>
>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>> Kier <vallon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:57:33 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Some get "compensated" for their time. People other than myself have
>>>>> spotted marketeers who spend their time in Netscape and Digg as well.
>>>>> When people like Will Wheaton (now a colleague of mine) talk about
>>>>> stalkers and SEO marketeers that set up networks and relationships for
>>>>> profit, then that ought to have some credence, not just concrete proof.
>>>>> The Web becomes the new marketing ground and there are few (if any)
>>>>> limits. It's one of these "he did it, I just retaliated" routine of 5
>>>>> year olds. Microsoft tells Jelliffe (?) that fanboys corrupt Open XML
>>>>> in blogs (or Wikis), so it takes that as a valid excuse to play
>>>>> hardball.
>>>>
>>>> Given teh behaviour of some people on Wikipedia, I wouldn't totally
>>>> discount this. Some people, whatever they are advocating, are just
>>>> stupid and malicious.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, there are always going to be some dirty tricks going on here
>>>> and there, but I doubt there is a huge campaign by MS to subvert COLA.
>>>
>>> This has always bothered me about your logic, Kier. You seem willing to
>>> accept that Microsoft would put money and effort into astroturfing
>>> pretty much every forum going, *except* cola. I still cannot
>>
>> Eh? I think you're missing something, there, since I've said no such
>> thing, ever. If you're referring to the above, I'm talking about the
>> likelihood of 'advocates' on both sides skewing articles to their agenda.
>> It does sometimes happen. And it's just as reprehensible for articles and
>> facts in those articles to be skewed or misrepresented by Linux advocates
>> as by MS.
>
> You said above that you wouldn't discount manipulation of wikipedia.
>
>>
>>> understand, and have never seen a remotely convincing argument, as to
>>> why cola should be different.
>>
>> MS is unlikely to be doing this anywhere on the scale you seem to think.
>> And COLA is nothing but a pumple on the backside of Usenet, which I doubt
>> is taken that seriously by anyone, least of all a company with as much
>> money and influence as MS. You really think we're that important here?
>>
>
> I think that cola is not unimportant. Try a google search, and you'll
> see why.
I concur. Don't underestimate even the impact on Google search (Google Groups
search aside). The other day I was searching for something like "ballmer
angry red hat customers". I sought a reference on the impact Ballmer's
"balance-sheet liability" statement had on clients who manage mixed
environments. I did this in Google search, not Google Groups search. Mark's
digest was among the top results, joined by others from COLA.
--
~~ Best wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | < http://debian.org >
http://Schestowitz.com | Free as in Free Beer ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Load average (/proc/loadavg): 1.32 0.95 0.72 1/136 10860
http://iuron.com - semantic search engine project initiative
|
|
