that’s it! off the newsfeed
Saturday, August 6th, 2005I remember the days when the peeved phrase “off the buddy list” was a pronouncement of social execution. That is becoming somewhat outdated as other modes of instant communication are becoming dominant. One recent rise of instant communication is the RSS and Atom feeds that many websites offer (including this one); instead of having to go to the website to view & read updates, your newsfeed grabber will find all recent updates and download them for you. Poi-fect!
CNET News has been in my newsfeed for a while, initially a spontaneous gotta-get-some-content choice. Now, after a website update that turned ugly-formatting-but-manageable CNET.com into brazen-attempts-for-visual-stimuli CNET.com and the afforementioned robo-reviews, another unfortunate mishap has occurred that will grant a vacant spot in my newsfeed.
This article. I am very supportive of professional blogs (well-written weblogs by staff of some respected company or group), but this entry is foolish, ill-informed, and based on someone else’s personal blog entry. Only by reading the quick entry yourself (and the comments) will you understand my now-consummate disdain for CNET.com.
In tandem to this, CNET has been using personal blog entries as sources for many of their recent news articles. For example, the article noting the announcement of “Windows Vista” had multiple references to personal blogs. Clearly, I am not saying that personal blogs are ignorant sources of information - my ego couldn’t grant that interpretation - but personal blogs are insufficient sources for professional blogs. Period. Yes, there are grey areas (Wil Wheaton, for one), but personal blogs do not have a place in providing article information on other, respected weblogs.
There’s more fire in my belly right now, but rather than expel all my rage in one, passionate burst, I will temporarily sooth it with an iced latte.
Update: CNET has posted a side-by-side review of the iPod mini and Creative Zen Micro. It is the clearest example of foolishness I have ever read (oh, and why am I still reading CNET? not sure, kind of fell onto the article). The “Sound and Science” portion of the review complains about the 8-hour battery life of the iPod mini. Huh? Are they using a first generation iPod mini? The latest release (January 2005) has an 18-hour battery life, significantly different from 8 hours. Why did I even link the article… ::sigh::