5 ms·

That's a cheap jab. In this case Jeff Atwood in these years would have 'advertised' programming chairs, video cards, SDD disks and many more tech products. I s

by Kurtz79 14y ago

That's a cheap jab. In this case Jeff Atwood in these years would have 'advertised' programming chairs, video cards, SDD disks and many more tech products. I see only the genuine excitement of a tech geek over a new technology. I will be definitely looking for a USB 3.0 stick, regardless of the brand, I didn't even notice what brand it was until you pointed to it.

awakeasleep 14y ago
You're operating under the assumption that advertising this would be immoral. I submit that we're consuming a product by reading the blog, and, to Mr Atwood, working with Seagate could be seen as kosher B2B development. Especially if he believed in the product, and insisted on complete editorial control. (Personally, I do believe a notification would be appropriate in the case I described)
UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
It isn't meant to be a "jab," cheap or otherwise. This blog post is, at least in part, a revenue generator for the blog (because of referral links). My question was, did it also generate revenue from the company who's products it links to/talks up? If it had have been (or is) then I would consider that immoral. This immorality has zero to do with making money from the blog post and everything to do with a potential conflict of interests (between his commitment to his readership and the company that would be paying him). The Amazon referral links have no such conflict of interests as he could equally have linked to any manufacturer's products and get the same revenue.
- JoelSutherland 14y ago
  Regardless of how you meant it, it is a cheap jab. You speculated without proof that Atwood engaged in immoral behavior. That is a pretty bad thing to do.
  - UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
    Speculation is speculation. I went to great pains to mention that it was a question/concern. I also provided enough proof to at least justify said speculation (i.e. it wasn't totally idle). I disagree that is is, within its self, a bad thing to do. We should hold people in the public eye to account, in particular when we spot what might be potential conflicts of interests.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      No, you made a declarative statement at the very beginning of your comment that 'This is a rather subtle advert.' By doing so, you're poisoning the well for any questions that you pose afterwards. Your theory about the product image turned out to be wrong, and saying that you're just asking questions when you've previously stated opinions as fact is not really convincing. I don't even like Jeff Atwood much, but I advise that you let this one go and next times ask questions before shooting.
- Kurtz79 14y ago
  I agree that if it was an advertising then it would be... well, 'immoral' is a strong word, but I get your point. Simply I don't think that's the case. I follow his blog every now and then, and I never was under impression I was being sold something. If people would perceive something like this, I think the damage to the image of the blog would largely offset any financial gain of 'sponsoring' a particular product. Jeff has been blogging for years, has an incredibly successful company behind him, and probably more money that he knows what to do with. For the life of me I cannot see him 'selling' his blog like that.
bitcartel 14y ago
I'm not sure what it was. If it was an advert, it didn't mention one of the biggest selling points: multiple channels. If you want to buy a fast USB 3.0 stick, make sure it's 4/8/12 channel, and of course check hardware review sites for benchmarks.
- Kurtz79 14y ago
  I'll do that, thanks for the hint.

by Kurtz79 14y ago

awakeasleep 14y ago

You're operating under the assumption that advertising this would be immoral. I submit that we're consuming a product by reading the blog, and, to Mr Atwood, working with Seagate could be seen as kosher B2B development. Especially if he believed in the product, and insisted on complete editorial control. (Personally, I do believe a notification would be appropriate in the case I described)

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago

It isn't meant to be a "jab," cheap or otherwise. This blog post is, at least in part, a revenue generator for the blog (because of referral links). My question was, did it also generate revenue from the company who's products it links to/talks up? If it had have been (or is) then I would consider that immoral. This immorality has zero to do with making money from the blog post and everything to do with a potential conflict of interests (between his commitment to his readership and the company that would be paying him). The Amazon referral links have no such conflict of interests as he could equally have linked to any manufacturer's products and get the same revenue.

JoelSutherland 14y ago
Regardless of how you meant it, it is a cheap jab. You speculated without proof that Atwood engaged in immoral behavior. That is a pretty bad thing to do.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  Speculation is speculation. I went to great pains to mention that it was a question/concern. I also provided enough proof to at least justify said speculation (i.e. it wasn't totally idle). I disagree that is is, within its self, a bad thing to do. We should hold people in the public eye to account, in particular when we spot what might be potential conflicts of interests.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    No, you made a declarative statement at the very beginning of your comment that 'This is a rather subtle advert.' By doing so, you're poisoning the well for any questions that you pose afterwards. Your theory about the product image turned out to be wrong, and saying that you're just asking questions when you've previously stated opinions as fact is not really convincing. I don't even like Jeff Atwood much, but I advise that you let this one go and next times ask questions before shooting.
Kurtz79 14y ago
I agree that if it was an advertising then it would be... well, 'immoral' is a strong word, but I get your point. Simply I don't think that's the case. I follow his blog every now and then, and I never was under impression I was being sold something. If people would perceive something like this, I think the damage to the image of the blog would largely offset any financial gain of 'sponsoring' a particular product. Jeff has been blogging for years, has an incredibly successful company behind him, and probably more money that he knows what to do with. For the life of me I cannot see him 'selling' his blog like that.

bitcartel 14y ago

I'm not sure what it was. If it was an advert, it didn't mention one of the biggest selling points: multiple channels. If you want to buy a fast USB 3.0 stick, make sure it's 4/8/12 channel, and of course check hardware review sites for benchmarks.

Kurtz79 14y ago
I'll do that, thanks for the hint.