Bloggers Go to War - Readers Lose

Last week, I was reading a post by an industry observer. This was a person I respect for his sharp mind and his encyclopedic knowledge. He has been in the CAD industry forever. A true CAD insider. The subject of his post interested me -- and by similarity, also the subscribers of TenLinks Daily. But I grew more dismayed as I read on as this post was peppered with jabs at another blogger. So frequent and pointed were the jabs that by the time I read to the end, I had forgotten what the article was about. I wanted to reread it but was pressed by a deadline. Many other articles had to be approved for insertion into the newsletter. With so many blogs, independent sites... plus vendor sites also publishing their material online, we are facing a deluge of material. In the early years of TenLinks, we used it all. But these days, rather than overwhelm our readers with a yard long daily newsletter, we have taken to eliminating links to articles that are may be irrelevant, uninteresting, insignificant, poorly written, hard to read... and in this case, maybe just a bit too personal.

Had I been an old school editor and these were articles I had commissioned, I would have edited the personal stuff out. But in my new job, I don't have that luxury. I can use it or not.

I'm not saying bloggers shouldn't write personal stuff. Heck, that is what blogs are for, right? You can write about your breakfast, your kid's birthday party, your feud with another blogger. Fine. It's America. We have free speech. Get it out of your system. I write personal stuff in mine sometimes. But I have to sort out what is going to be useful and/or interesting for my subscribers. So for their sake, I have to have standards.

Or am I being too high minded? The week before I didn't use an article that had a curse word in the title. But I only have to look at the magazines by the supermarket checkout to be reminded that negative material sells magazines. Being shocking sells. Maybe I should publish beach photos of CAD celebrities who have fallen off their diet, who got really drunk at the last conference, who is getting a divorce. There's no shortage... 

It makes me cringe but are you Interested?

Comments

[Matt Lombard]

Evan,

I have taken to coloring sarcastic text purple on my blog. I feel that it still allows me to convey irony, farce, lampoon and be sure that the audience has a way to know that it's really sarcasm and not simply bad taste. Sarcasm in raw print rarely works unless your name is Mark Twain.

[Jon Banquer]

Whatever it takes to bring more attention to the dead end that history based modeling truly is so be it.

Whatever it takes to get companies to toss their history based CAD solutions in the trash and replace them with direct modeling solutions so be it.

It's a war. Lets call it what it is and not expect those on either side to play "nice".

Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
http://jonbanquer.wordpress.com/

[Evan Yares]

Considering that Roopinder was writing about a post I wrote on my blog, I should respond.

The post that Roopinder referenced was an attempt to show two things: That disagreement between bloggers is not a bad thing, in that it gives a basis for discussion, and, that there is always a story behind the story.

I discussed blogger Deelip Menezes' remarks on "dynamic push-pull direct modeling," and pointed out that, rather than being invented just in the last few years, it has been around for 14 years. (To be fair, it depends on how you define your terms. I was using a broader definition than Deelip was.)

In the post, I made some farcical jabs at Deelip. For example, after describing some preexisting technology, I wrote "Did you hear that Deelip? You're Wrong!!!"

I tried to make it really obvious that those jabs were satire -- having just written that disagreement "gives a basis for discussion. And, if it entertains the world--that's OK." I had also said of Deelip, "[h]e's an enthusiastic developer of CAD utility software, who has an interesting, and occasionally fresh, perspective on things."

At the time I wrote the post, I thought it was obvious that I was lampooning the notion of what Roopinder calls "bloggers go[ing] to war."

Given this thread, it appears that it wasn't obvious at all.

To the extent that anyone thought that I was denigrating Deelip, I owe him an apology. I want to make it clear that he has my respect.

I'll do my best to be less obscure in the future.

[twitter.com/burhop]

I do think there is a difference from being shocking or confrontational and taking a stand.

I went to a SM conference where a "take a stand" post was suggested as something good to do every few posts. I saw another analogy where blogging is like eating - sometimes you want a spicy meal.

So, while I'm not interested in some blogger's rant, a blogger that takes a stand to stimulate a healthy debate is a good thing.

[Matt Lombard]

Attacks that call out individuals indicate that the writer has opinions and emotions that they believe in. Some readers prefer this to the usually cold and bloodless things you tend to read from the pro press.

Some people call mentioning a name as a "personal" attack, but to me a personal attack means that it has nothing to do with ones professional life. It's the difference between "Billy-Bob's policy amounts to money-grubbing disrespect for customers" and "Jethro's mother wears combat boots".

Still, you can take even the professional calling-out too far. Sometimes it serves a purpose (such as to call attention to a very bad policy) and sometimes its just serves to make someone feel bigger, or smaller as the case may be.

To me, the further the writer is from Big CAD Money, the more credible they are. Those close to the money have a vested interest in promoting particular points of view. From there it's just a case of quality of content, or how close the writer comes to pressing my buttons.

Blogger or not, there are still standards when it comes to public use of language, whether you are a professional writer, engineer or designer. The article you mention made an avoidable use of language that may not ever be appropriate in professional writing.

[Jonathan Yeandle]

Hello Roopinder,

I share your discomfort. The range, from fact to fiction to profanity, often in the same article merely removes any value for me.

Blanking out a few letters of an offensive word does nothing to hide the offense.

Nope! not interested.

The personal attacks aspect is difficult but it's purpose is usually transparent. Some are obviously a reaction to some previous hurtful comment whilst others appear more sinister. I guess it's going to happen.

Hello Paul,

I agree that the whole Licensing thing is going to become critical. I think it will need to be delved into by a brave individual with no monetary link to the business. Maybe that's why it's not happening? It will make good reading if it does happen.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

[R. Paul Waddington]

"Maybe I should publish beach photos of CAD celebrities who have fallen off their diet, who got really drunk at the last conference, who is getting a divorce. There's no shortage..."

Roopinda these topics hold very little interest for me but the one area the CAD press, of all ilks, is still avoiding are the areas involving licencing.

Licencing remains an area of considerable concern. As much as users want to hide from any real discussion on this topic the reality is it is going to become more critical and should be aired - who better than the press in all its forms.

Well researched and written articles on licencing will SHOCK and therefore may also sell.