4 ms·
I've been looking at stremor.com to find some justification for your bold claims. I'm still looking; these are some ancillary points: -The copy throughout the
by gavinh 13y ago
I've been looking at stremor.com to find some justification for your bold claims. I'm still looking; these are some ancillary points:
-The copy throughout the site does not inspire confidence. Your point that many texts are written poorly is valid. That does not require you to also write poorly. I've seen far too many sentence fragments on your site. You site also includes some embarrassing misuses of words, like "Some may believe using heuristic science in language analysis infers it
is a learning system." These incidents discredit your claims about your technology.
-I am having difficulty finding specific information about how your technology works.
-The people responsible for your graphics, visual design, and the video about the summarization app should not have those responsibilities. Summly had nice a aesthetic; your aesthetic is jeopardizing your credibility.
I apologize if my comments sound hostile. When you make claims as bold as yours you should prepare for scrutiny. The problems you are addressing are interesting; I wish you good luck.
- drakaal 13y agoYou judge the technology based on the marketing? Summly had no tech and lots of marketing. SRI had no marketing and lots of tech. I'd rather be SRI than Summly. Take note as to which one got a Billion dollar valuation.
- gavinh 13y agoI don't judge your technology based on your marketing; as I mentioned, I looked for specific information about your technology but was not able to find any. The .pdf you linked is what I quoted above; I'm interested more in your papers or patents. SRI is a respected brand with a great reputation and history. I wouldn't be so dismissive of marketing since, as you mention, you have recently exited stealth mode.
- drakaal 13y agoWe started 14 months ago. Papers and Patents take a bit longer than that to get through. We have two pending patents. Much of the "magic" is trade secret rather than patent because the changes in patent law are now requiring enough information for you to build the tech. We don't have the money for enforcement, so making that much IP public scares us, especially if someone like Google decided that the patent was "obvious". So we are balancing our portfolio of IP. Enough to be worth acquiring, not so much that you could dupe the work with the part that are in the public record.
- gavinh 13y agoI didn't realize that you had started so recently. I appreciate that patents and papers take time to produce. I am trying to be helpful when I say that for a company that produces language processing technology, your customer-facing content shows a strange disregard for language. If your writing does not demonstrate that you have mastered English grammar, why should I believe that your software has?
- drakaal 13y agoThe challenge with the website is saying things in such a way that we don't scare off the non-technical, and still appeal to the technical. All cards on the table, there is a lot of discussion internally about who we are writing for. The result is we get a mish-mash of copy from Engineering and Marketing. The PDF I linked to is much better because those were targeted to Engineering managers. The website still doesn't know who it is targeting. http://www.tldrstuff.com http://www.tldrstuff.com knows its audience it sucks much less.
- jorah 13y agoSimple, clear, and grammatically-correct writing will not intimidate non-technical users.
- sp332 13y agoYou judge the technology based on the marketing? Nope, gavinh is judging whether the product is even worth looking at by its marketing.
- drakaal 13y agoHere is a better and more succinct, and mostly up to date version of capabilities and technology. http://www.stremor.com/stremor.pdf http://www.stremor.com/stremor.pdf