dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) (10/23/90)
[At the risk of beating a dead horse...] archbold@bluemoon.uucp (Archie Jaszcz) writes: > Ok, John and others who agree with him on bashing Darek Michocka: >For one thing, there are lotsa people who'd like to have his Quick ST II >and I don't appreciate such strong developer bashing as you try to pass >onto us. The real issue (as far as I can tell) is not with Darek's posting style but rather with his supposed use of Usenet as an advertising vehicle. The fact is that Usenet has always (in spirit, at least) been intended for NON-PROFIT purposes, to the extent that commercial advertising is severely FROWNED UPON. In fact, I believe most Usenet veterans would say agree that _commercial_ sale notices are absolutely PROHIBITED. (Commercial, that is, versus personal for-sale notices, like cars for sale, etc. Darek is "allowed" to post a message telling everyone his car is for sale, but he is not "allowed" to post a message telling everyone his new product QuickProgramProver is available for sale.) As I see it, the tricky parts are: 1) Who's going to stop him from doing something "not allowed"? 2) Who decides what is a "commercial advertisement" vs. a "general interest announcement"? Proabably what it comes down to is that the people who really don't like the product announcements will harrass him until he stops posting them. (Personally, I don't care either way, as long as none of the for sale messages make it into comp.sys.atari.st.tech!) :-) I would definitely NOT call this "developer bashing". There are more "developers" on this net than it sounds like you think. I'm sure it is NOT the case that Darek is one of a handful of people who read this group who write shareware and/or commercial software. You make it sound like these "developers" are a precious resource that we must cherish and fawn over so we get the benefit of their Infinite Wisdom. I think a more accurate portayal might be, "There are lots of people who read this group who know lots of stuff about the ST." Period. > I think that Darek Michocka has done alot for this ST world and >he deserves a little respect in that light. This strikes me as wholly irrelevant. Fame is no excuse for violating protocol, if you ask me. (As I said, I make no judgement as to whether he has or not.) > So, please, if you don't like Quick ST II or Darek, speak for >yourself and let a good developer do his work. I think you're turning >developers away by such posts, and we do need them you know... If "his work" involves posting advertisements to Usenet, there are many people who must go against your plea on priciple. With regard to your fear that "developers are turning away", I _really_ wouldn't worry about it. The ones that have suffered this long MUST be gluttons for punishment. :-) > UseNet was the place where I found out about Quick ST II and thanx >to that I'm gonna be able to get it. I usually get most of my info off of >this medium of communication, so I think that Darek's choice of posting >here was pretty good. Do you think Usenet would be just as useful if it were filled with commercial advertisements? [Not necessarily rhetorical.] > On the other hand: Darek, I didn't like the way you got on >someone's case when s/he tried to get some info about pd programms which >would put a picture on desktop... Might I humbly suggest email for this purpose? This ad hominem stuff is how newsgroup threads get _ugly_. Dave Baggett dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uu.net
hojo@cbnewsl.att.com (HC Johnson) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct22.190053.21874@wam.umd.edu>, dmb@wam.umd.edu (David M. Baggett) writes: > > [At the risk of beating a dead horse...] > > > The real issue (as far as I can tell) is not with Darek's posting style > but rather with his supposed use of Usenet as an advertising vehicle. > The fact is that Usenet has always (in spirit, at least) been intended > for NON-PROFIT purposes, to the extent that commercial advertising is > severely FROWNED UPON. > Personally I think its all a matter of form and frequency. No one seems to jump on first person testimonials, such as "I just tried Dareks demo program and it G R E A T. He'll send you a free copy if ..." But you are all yelling because he posted it, not a user. I think that "not commercial" more reasonably means that Sams used computers should not post their monthly list of inventory. I for one like to see new products mentioned here, whether by the author or a happy user. Howard Johnson ATT BELL LABS att!lzsc!hcj hcj@lzsc.att.com
pdel@ADS.COM (Peter Delevoryas) (10/25/90)
>Personally I think its all a matter of form and frequency. > >No one seems to jump on first person testimonials >But you are all yelling because he posted it, not a user. > >I for one like to see new products mentioned here, whether by the author or >a happy user. > >Howard Johnson Yeah, what he said. Peter D
darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) (10/26/90)
In article <1990Oct22.190053.21874@wam.umd.edu> dmb%wam.umd.edu@uunet.uu.net (David M. Baggett) writes: >The real issue (as far as I can tell) is not with Darek's posting style >but rather with his supposed use of Usenet as an advertising vehicle. >The fact is that Usenet has always (in spirit, at least) been intended >for NON-PROFIT purposes, to the extent that commercial advertising is >severely FROWNED UPON. > >In fact, I believe most Usenet veterans would say agree that >_commercial_ sale notices are absolutely PROHIBITED. (Commercial, that >is, versus personal for-sale notices, like cars for sale, etc. Darek >is "allowed" to post a message telling everyone his car is for sale, >but he is not "allowed" to post a message telling everyone his new >product QuickProgramProver is available for sale.) I have to disagree with that. If we were to follow that rule to the letter, then any discussion of ANY commercial product, whether software, or hardware could constitute being called advertizing. For example, when someone posts complete specs and prices for the TT or the new Macs, is that not really advertizing? Any time someone posts the name of a product and a price and an address, is that not adveritzing? What difference is there if I post my address and prices, or if someone else does it. If someone wants to know, I'll post it. And the "product" I was "advertizing" was a free demo. I didn't waste a lot of bandwidth by posting a 150K uuencoded file to the net. Instead, I posted a short message saying that if anyone is interested, they can email me privately, and then later posted a 9K message because a lot of people requested it. more bandwidth has been wasted arguing about this than my original 2 postings! The whole point of the demo is to give people a free taste of what I sell without forcing them to spend a penny. I am even mailing the demo disks out at MY OWN EXPENSE, and an not using the net's bandwidth to email dozens of 150K uuencoded messages. What can be discussed if we can't talk about commercial products? Remember that message I posted about two weeks ago where I bitched about how commercial products don't get discussed on Usenet. Well I see why. And it ridiculous. We have here a network for the free exchange of information all around the world, and you're telling me I can't post a message telling people about my product. I'm not posting daily or weekly "ads", just one announcement. If you're telling me I can't do that, then Jesus, what's Usenet for? There is just so much PD software we can talk about and distribute. - Darek ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darek Mihocka All views expressed are my own. Branch Always Software XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (address crossed out so that I can't be accused of advertizing) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (10/26/90)
In article <58521@microsoft.UUCP> darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) writes: >I have to disagree with that. If we were to follow that rule to the letter, >then any discussion of ANY commercial product, whether software, or >hardware could constitute being called advertizing. For example, when >someone posts complete specs and prices for the TT or the new Macs, is that >not really advertizing? Any time someone posts the name of a product and >a price and an address, is that not adveritzing? What difference is there >if I post my address and prices, or if someone else does it. If someone >wants to know, I'll post it. The difference? It's a question of ethics. I don't see any problem if a person buys your program, becomes very happy with it, and then raves about it on the net. That is what Usenet is for, the exchange of ideas. It is completely different for you, the author, to blow your own horn, tell us how overpriced other products are that compete with your product, and then offer a promotion of your product (the free disk offer). >And the "product" I was "advertizing" was a free demo. I didn't waste a lot >of bandwidth by posting a 150K uuencoded file to the net. Instead, I posted >a short message saying that if anyone is interested, they can email me >privately, and then later posted a 9K message because a lot of people >requested it. Well, that was very GENEROUS of you to only make all the sites on Usenet propogate thousands of 9K files instead of 150K. It isn't the length that is wrong, it is the concept of what you're doing that is wrong. >more bandwidth has been wasted arguing about this than my >original 2 postings! This is true. However, that doesn't absolve you of what you did. What you did was still wrong. >What can be discussed if we can't talk about commercial products? Remember >that message I posted about two weeks ago where I bitched about how commercial >products don't get discussed on Usenet. Well I see why. And it ridiculous. >We have here a network for the free exchange of information all around the >world, and you're telling me I can't post a message telling people about my >product. I'm not posting daily or weekly "ads", just one announcement. If >you're telling me I can't do that, then Jesus, what's Usenet for? There is >just so much PD software we can talk about and distribute. Who said we cannot discuss commercial products? I see them discussed all the time? There is a difference between discussion commercial products and a software author plugging his wares on the net. >- Darek ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (10/28/90)
In article <58521@microsoft.UUCP> darekm@microsoft.UUCP (Darek MIHOCKA) writes: >I have to disagree with that. If we were to follow that rule to the letter, >then any discussion of ANY commercial product, whether software, or >hardware could constitute being called advertizing. Usenet is a diverse place. Here's what news.announce.newusers has to say about commercial postings: | Announcement of professional products or services on Usenet is allowed; | however, since someone else is paying the phone bills for this, it is | important that it be of overall benefit to Usenet. Post to the | appropriate newsgroup -- comp.newprod -- never to a general purpose | newsgroup such as "misc.misc". Clearly mark your article as a product | announcement in the subject. Never repeat these -- one article per | product at the most; preferably group everything into one article. | Advertising hype is especially frowned upon -- stick to technical | facts. Obnoxious or inappropriate announcements or articles violating | this policy will generally be rejected. This policy is, of course, | subject to change if it becomes a problem. This "rule" is really just custom; each network within the Internet has its own formal rules. Occasionally I find myself agonizing about press releases that I find within Z*Net, because they go over the customary line. |And the "product" I was "advertizing" was a free demo. One short message seems appropriate to me. But I'm not an authority on anything.
rrd@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ray Depew) (10/30/90)
Chris, > There is a difference between discussion [of] commercial products and > a software author plugging his wares on the net. Not much. When you grow up and graduate and your employer sends you to Conferences, Symposia and Trade Shows, you will have to learn for yourself to tell the difference between a "technical presentation" and a "sales job". Right now, you can go down to the engineering library and check out a back issue of [insert journal name here] to get some practice. Half of the articles are "technical articles" and the other half are "sales jobs," and you can't tell the difference by the title or the color of the page. We in the industry don't particularly mind listening to or reading a "sales job." There's some cool stuff out there, and how else are we going to find out about it? If you want to sell a product, you're going to need to advertise. "Technical presentations" and "technical papers" are a good way to do it. And you don't have to pay for the space! We just learn to recognize the sales job up front, and then wear our BS-blockers for the remainder of the article or presentation. While you're in the trade journals, read the "Tech Notes" or "New Developments" section. There are some reviews of new products in there, that aren't really reviews. They are press releases, written by the manufacturer or a hired pen, artfully crafted to sound like a review. Some of them don't even mention the manufacturer's name, or they use the hired pen's name to make the review sound legitimate. The journals print them verbatim. They don't review the products to check the text's accuracy. Whether Darek crows about his product or whether someone else does, it doesn't make any difference. For all you know, Darek gave what's-his-name a free copy of QSTII and asked him to comment on it on the net. (Not saying that he did, mind you...) That's not illegal or unethical. That's business. You may not like the way it looks, from your side of the fence, but I'd be willing to bet my ST that within 10 years you'll see it differently. No flames intended in any of the above. Please don't go looking for any. Regards Ray Depew IC's by Bill and Dave rrd@hpfitst1.hp.com ----------
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) (10/30/90)
In article <7340018@hpfcso.HP.COM> rrd@hpfcso.HP.COM (Ray Depew) writes: >Chris, > [stuff deleted] >Whether Darek crows about his product or whether someone else does, it doesn't >make any difference. For all you know, Darek gave what's-his-name a free copy >of QSTII and asked him to comment on it on the net. (Not saying that he did, >mind you...) That's not illegal or unethical. That's business. You may not >like the way it looks, from your side of the fence, but I'd be willing to bet >my ST that within 10 years you'll see it differently. I would agree with you if Darek was paying for this space. Unlike a trade journal, where one pays to advertise, this medium is paid for by its users. As such, I don't think it is ethical for a business to blow their own horn and make promotional advertisements. I don't think I'll see this differently in 10 years. It isn't WHAT he is doing that is bothersome, it is the fact that others are footing the bill to pay his advertising costs. If he is making money for this "product" then he should have to pay his own advertising costs. > >No flames intended in any of the above. Please don't go looking for any. None taken. >Regards >Ray Depew >IC's by Bill and Dave >rrd@hpfitst1.hp.com A bientot, Chris ------------------------------+--------------------------- Chris Mauritz |D{r det finns en |l, finns cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu |det en plan! (c)All rights reserved. | Send flames to /dev/null | ------------------------------+---------------------------
steve@thelake.mn.org (Steve Yelvington) (11/02/90)
[In article <1990Oct30.145154.23445@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>,
cmm1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Christopher M Mauritz) writes ... ]
> I would agree with you if Darek was paying for this space. Unlike a trade
> journal, where one pays to advertise, this medium is paid for by its
> users. As such, I don't think it is ethical for a business to blow their
> own horn and make promotional advertisements.
In response to a similar question issue raised in news.admin, Henry Spencer
posted the following.
|... the consensus opinion in the past has been that brief
|announcements with significant technical content are generally useful and
|should not be discouraged, while long press releases full of glowing
|adjectives are garbage which should not be inflicted on the net at large.
I agree. Information is useful. A long harangue that reads like a radio
commercial for a dragstrip is offensive. You don't have to be a rocket
scientist to figure out the difference. Now, could this issue be laid
to rest?
---
steve@thelake.mn.org
Administrative note: thelake has suffered a hard drive failure and is
not likely to be repaired before the first week of December. Mail to or
through thelake may be delayed.