3 ms·
The irony in the OP is that he is a blogger criticizing another blogger for poor quality and his own post is complete shit. A proper critique of Techcrunch wou
by nikcub 16y ago
The irony in the OP is that he is a blogger criticizing another blogger for poor quality and his own post is complete shit.
A proper critique of Techcrunch would look more like this:
Take some real traffic and social network stats
Take a sample of stories from 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 years ago and compare volume, subject matter, stories about startups to show a trend in topics covered, etc. Produce a nice graph showing how the # of startup stories has decreased. Overlay it with traffic stats.
Show examples of startups that launched without Techcrunch
Show examples of other tech conferences, other sources of startup information and how they compare, new upcoming blogs
Show examples of stale writing, poor writing, where tech issues were not correct. Do this using quotes and links.
Substantiate each one of these points and conclude using all this data that the influence of Techcrunch may not be what is once was, then pontificate what the future may hold.
Writing a proper story would require effort - it is a lot easier to take a screenshot from compete, call somebody a dick, submit it to HN and appeal to the masses.
- aristus 16y agoThat is a much, much higher standard than TechCrunch itself seems to use. On one hand you claim inaccuracies are "2%" and acceptable, and that a few phone calls is enough research before going to press. On the other hand you demand a 6-point research project before someone can even begin to criticize TC in turn. Where is your six-point research project backing up why "his own post is complete shit"? I have no opinion either way -- but I believe you're applying very different standards of proof.
- nikcub 16y agohis post was a poor personal attack with zero effort to back up any claims. I outlined one of the ways it could have been a better post.