Comments on: Here’s Why Your Article Sucks, CNET http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 18:33:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: mike barrett http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-69284 mike barrett Sat, 28 Apr 2007 09:09:59 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-69284 The author of "Here’s Why Your Article Sucks, CNET" asks ”How did this get past an editor?” . I ask "how did THIS get past an editor"??!! "....I’d be embarrassed to post something like this....". - purely on basic grammatical grounds, so would I! Why? Because the author seems to be unaware: that "...its a rip off .." is correctly written "...it's a rip-off" that he confuses number of VCs and their feet in "The VC.....his position" and "they jumped in with both feet" - one VC has two feet while "they" have pairs of feet "ones who’s money" - this one really makes me cringe!! who's is the abbreviation of who is, whose is the possessive of who. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones! The author of “Here’s Why Your Article Sucks, CNET” asks ”How did this get past an editor?”
.
I ask “how did THIS get past an editor”??!!
“….I’d be embarrassed to post something like this….”. - purely on basic grammatical grounds, so would I!
Why? Because the author seems to be unaware: that “…its a rip off ..” is correctly written “…it’s a rip-off”

that he confuses number of VCs and their feet in “The VC…..his position” and “they jumped in with both feet” - one VC has two feet while “they” have pairs of feet

“ones who’s money” - this one really makes me cringe!!
who’s is the abbreviation of who is, whose is the possessive of who.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!

]]> By: steve http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-68003 steve Tue, 24 Apr 2007 13:14:36 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-68003 @Blake: I did make an assumption, but communicated it badly. I was confusing ZDNet (who I blog for) with CNET (the parent company). Sorry for the misleading comment. @Blake: I did make an assumption, but communicated it badly. I was confusing ZDNet (who I blog for) with CNET (the parent company). Sorry for the misleading comment.

]]> By: Patricia http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-67834 Patricia Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:06:14 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-67834 And for the record, I still have a hard time figuring out where CNet wants to fit in. It's built a business on downloads and product reviews, yet has these blogs that are trying to play among sites that don't seem to be anything near what they're doing. Maybe it's just me, but when I think CNet, I don't think Web 2.0 insight. I think products. And for the record, I still have a hard time figuring out where CNet wants to fit in. It’s built a business on downloads and product reviews, yet has these blogs that are trying to play among sites that don’t seem to be anything near what they’re doing. Maybe it’s just me, but when I think CNet, I don’t think Web 2.0 insight. I think products.

]]> By: Patricia http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-67833 Patricia Mon, 23 Apr 2007 21:04:51 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-67833 I don't think anybody - including the VC, bloggers, etc. - really knows what makes for a good sale until they're under the hood and make the decision. Maybe it's traffic, maybe it's revenue, maybe it's strategy. It's nonsensical to think there's a specific this or that to successful web business. And for the record, I'd love to know where all these Web 2.0 start ups are pulling in all this enormous revenue. If YouTube wasn't profitable for as huge as it was, I'm having a hard time buying that all these little tiny start ups are nabbing it instead. Just my .2 I don’t think anybody - including the VC, bloggers, etc. - really knows what makes for a good sale until they’re under the hood and make the decision. Maybe it’s traffic, maybe it’s revenue, maybe it’s strategy. It’s nonsensical to think there’s a specific this or that to successful web business. And for the record, I’d love to know where all these Web 2.0 start ups are pulling in all this enormous revenue. If YouTube wasn’t profitable for as huge as it was, I’m having a hard time buying that all these little tiny start ups are nabbing it instead.

Just my .2

]]> By: sooth_sayer http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-67831 sooth_sayer Mon, 23 Apr 2007 20:41:59 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-67831 Mike, The simplistic view of page-views = value is wrong, but so is your harsh criticism. The other point of the blog that a very large number of startups are really features and CAN'T be standalone viable business's is also true. Will netvibes/pageflakes survive? Will onidrive/box.net etc. have long to live no matter how much oxygen(or money) you provide them. Some companies have built successful models and name with it, most can't, there is not much to build upon! Mike,

The simplistic view of page-views = value is wrong, but so is your harsh criticism.

The other point of the blog that a very large number of startups are really features and CAN’T be standalone viable business’s is also true.

Will netvibes/pageflakes survive? Will onidrive/box.net etc. have long to live no matter how much oxygen(or money) you provide them.

Some companies have built successful models and name with it, most can’t, there is not much to build upon!

]]> By: blake http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-67184 blake Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:27:35 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-67184 It is my assumption that even the News Blog at CNET has editors. At least that's what the implication was of Caroline McCarthy's post (here: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6139240-7.html) in November when she slighted Michael for a misspelling. Plus, if you goto the CNET staff page (http://news.com.com/2040-1096_3-0.html) it lists 20 people with "editor" in their title. I'm not sure what they all do, but it seems more than plausible to me that at least one of them might lend their eyes to the copy on the News Blog. And Steve, you didn't really make an assumption. You made a statement; a statement that said that most blogs, even ones under the CNET umbrella, don't have editors. I appreciate the merit of your statement, and its legitimacy, but the solidity of your position has rather shifted from one comment to another. It is my assumption that even the News Blog at CNET has editors. At least that’s what the implication was of Caroline McCarthy’s post (here: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-6139240-7.html) in November when she slighted Michael for a misspelling. Plus, if you goto the CNET staff page (http://news.com.com/2040-1096_3-0.html) it lists 20 people with “editor” in their title. I’m not sure what they all do, but it seems more than plausible to me that at least one of them might lend their eyes to the copy on the News Blog.

And Steve, you didn’t really make an assumption. You made a statement; a statement that said that most blogs, even ones under the CNET umbrella, don’t have editors. I appreciate the merit of your statement, and its legitimacy, but the solidity of your position has rather shifted from one comment to another.

]]> By: Joe http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-67183 Joe Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:13:18 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-67183 I dont understand what your frustration is Mike. This was a blog post - someone's opinion. And to a certain degree a valid one. There are definitely other parameters for valuation; but CPM is one. The whole Web2.0 space is getting to be more like the 99-00 phase. And its people like you who are making all the noise and over-hyping it. Well, I guess it helps your business. I dont understand what your frustration is Mike. This was a blog post - someone’s opinion. And to a certain degree a valid one. There are definitely other parameters for valuation; but CPM is one.

The whole Web2.0 space is getting to be more like the 99-00 phase. And its people like you who are making all the noise and over-hyping it. Well, I guess it helps your business.

]]> By: steve http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-66924 steve Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:25:41 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-66924 John is right. I've no idea how News.com works. I was just making the assumption that most blogs aren't "edited" in the traditional sense. John is right. I’ve no idea how News.com works. I was just making the assumption that most blogs aren’t “edited” in the traditional sense.

]]> By: Collective Wisdom http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-66916 Collective Wisdom Fri, 20 Apr 2007 21:21:42 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-66916 Mike, you are a whiny flea on the ass of an 800-pound gorilla. Good thing you can move fast so you don't get sit on. BTW, how long have you been doing this for? You are still in the Honeymoon stage of your relationship with writing. Mike, you are a whiny flea on the ass of an 800-pound gorilla. Good thing you can move fast so you don’t get sit on.

BTW, how long have you been doing this for? You are still in the Honeymoon stage of your relationship with writing.

]]> By: John http://www.crunchnotes.com/2007/04/20/heres-why-your-article-sucks-cnet/#comment-66903 John Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:50:05 +0000 http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=385#comment-66903 I'm not disagreeing, I'm just saying that Steve is not in a position to have any insight into the News.com editorial process. Neither am I, for that matter. I’m not disagreeing, I’m just saying that Steve is not in a position to have any insight into the News.com editorial process. Neither am I, for that matter.

]]>