(As always, speaking only for myself.) On Jul 1, "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org> wrote:
Such reactions are pure marketing: we can't admit that maybe there is some way we could improve things or some set of things our network doesn't do well because that would hurt our product image.
I dunno...from what I saw on here, most of the people who were giving Jack a really hard time weren't even measured in that study. From what I saw, the most consistent problem that people pointed out was that what Jack said the story was measuring and what it actually measured were two different things. IMHO, Jack made the problem /much/ worse by trying to defend it without paying much attention to the arguments presented -- he had already made up his mind as to what kind of response he'd get (angry from "losers," supportive from "winners"), and did not seem to really notice when the actual ratio of response was different. This strikes me as exceedingly poor journalism (and a fairly dumb thing to do in and of itself). So, while I would love to help /somebody/ get better statistics on this kind of stuff, it seems (based on his actions here as well as some of his articles and editorials) that Jack is not enough of an objective journalist to do such a study in a thorough and scientific manner. Hopefully somebody else will...and by the way, Jack, I'd be quite happy for you to prove me wrong in the meantime. *********************************************************************** J.D. Falk voice: +1-415-482-2840 Supervisor, Network Operations fax: +1-415-482-2844 PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net "The People You Know. The People You Trust." ***********************************************************************