5 ms·

I know this sounds ridiculous, but waiting 24 minutes is a pretty long time in the blogging world for something like this. Had it been something controversial

I know this sounds ridiculous, but waiting 24 minutes is a pretty long time in the blogging world for something like this. Had it been something controversial or potentially damaging I would have waited longer and tried calling more people. But this was just a basic feature that was apparently live for everyone (at least, everyone in the TC office). I was really only contacting them to see if they had an explanation as to why they'd want to implement this.

tsally 17y ago
Yeah, I can understand that. I wasn't trying to challenge your journalist integrity. As you noted, it wasn't a controversial piece. I was simply saying that trying for a comment in such a small time frame by email is pointless since a response in that time is very unlikely. I was thinking either a phone call or publishing right away as alternatives.
- jkincaid 17y ago
  Actually Facebook tends to be quite responsive. They have a general press Email address that goes to something like ten PR people, so it isn't unusual to get a response within ten minutes (or at least a note saying that someone is looking into the issue).
  - tsally 17y ago
    Ah, then I understand where you were coming from. Definitely did not know that when I made my original comment. :)
    - dc2k08 17y ago
      The TC post does hint at a serious motive for the prank though. ...And something else about teaching us to contact them before posting.
      - arithmetic 17y ago
        I love the fact that the feature (of faxing photos) actually works. Telling sign of true geeks.
        rhodin 17y ago
        Yeah quite cool, hope they'll roll out this feature for all of us!
        jacquesm 17y ago
        The Facebook/TechCrunch litmus test of feature design: - come up with crazy ass feature - implement in the minimal possible way - enable feature for techcrunch network only - see if they write about it - check comments on techcrunch - response bad -> yank feature, nobody the wiser, response positive -> implement feature by pulling an all nighter.
      - jacquesm 17y ago
        And everybody else. I figure that pulling a TechCrunch will go down in to history as 'getting an online publication to write something terribly wrong to teach them a lesson about journalism and fact checking'. Let's see how long it takes before someone else pulls a stunt like this on TC. Hair trigger journalism.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
scott_s 17y ago
If waiting 24 minutes to get basic information for a story is a "pretty long time in the blogging world," then maybe there's something wrong with the blogging world.
- rapind 17y ago
  Of course there is! Shame on the journalist who gives us what we want! Who's traffic spikes when they practice what we consider sketchy... right before we ourselves go read the article. Sometimes I even read the terrible article before I complain about it's integrity. I really wish these guys would show more integrity than me, and simply ignore the fact that I lap up whatever they post.
  - mighty 17y ago
    It's a lot more efficient for the journalist to maintain integrity in the authoring of information than it is to have every reader scrutinize that information for a lack of it.
    - rapind 17y ago
      Agreed. That does seem more efficient... when can we launch?
  - njharman 17y ago
    > right before we ourselves go read the article. I in fact have not read the article (I refuse to waste my time/give TC a page view) because they represent crap and I want crap to wither and die. Principals, some people try to live by them.
    - rapind 17y ago
      I think that's great. I sometimes read crap though. I get sucked in by those OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING AND YOU NEED TO READ THIS TO LIVE type headlines... even though I know better I still click on it. You're a more disciplined man than I, and it's good to know some people are making the effort to keep them honest.
jacquesm 17y ago
I'm sorry, I don't buy that. If a new facebook feature is reason enough to throw all reason and caution overboard then how can we ever trust anything TechCrunch writes to begin with. Surely the world does not lose anything critical if you verify if what you see is not an anomaly but an actual released feature ? No press release ? No statement on a blog somewhere ? No verification from FB ? Run the presses, we've got a scoop! It really does sound ridiculous, 24 minutes for 'something like this' makes it sound as though the appearance of a new feature in facebook is of earth shattering importance. By falling for this prank you may have shot yourselves worse in the foot than you realize. First you lost a bunch of respect about the Twitter documents, now you prove that you do not care about the accuracy of your stories as long as you get them out first. TechCrunch depends on readers believing that what TechCrunch writes is true, and verifiably so. I'll bet you the next feature that facebook launches will be thoroughly researched by you before you hit 'submit'. Or did you not put some procedures in place after this fairly good example of a social engineering hack ?
- jkincaid 17y ago
  Right, because websites regularly roll out fake features that need verification as to whether they actually exist or not? I wasn't contacting them to verify if it was real — clearly they were rolling it out to people (though obviously on a very limited basis). I was contacting them to figure out their logic for implementing such a bizarre feature.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > Right, because websites regularly roll out fake features that need verification as to whether they actually exist or not? Well, you have one datapoint more now than you did last week ;) Lets hope the counter gets stuck at '1'. > I wasn't contacting them to verify if it was real — clearly they were rolling it out to people (though obviously on a very limited basis). Yes, why bother verifying something that even the first couple of posters on your site immediately classified as a hoax ? 5:29 original post 5:37, all of 8 minutes later, Rob Abbott: please tell me this is a joke 5:39: bad april fools joke, Stephen Ausman 5:41: Matt Harwood: I call hoax So, if you consider it bizarre enough to contact them, your readers point out that it is in all likelihood a hoax you still contradict them. After all, it so completely makes sense for facebook to implement this, what with the popular demand for this feature and all. After all, every 'expert' in the industry is well aware of the rise of fax usage between the users of social networks. Elsewhere you say that facebook usually responds very well, and that a response within 10 minutes isn't unusual. So, in spite of them normally responding amazingly fast you did not have the courtesy to wait for their response ? Must be hard to let go of a scoop. I'm really happy that if it would have been damaging that you would have at least waited a little longer and that you would have tried to contact more people. But effectively that says: "If it would have been damaging then we would have run it regardless". Just 20 minutes and a couple of emails later maybe. Class act.
coliveira 17y ago
In fact 24 min is the time they took to write that article. They really didn't wait even a single minute before writing it :-)

tsally 17y ago

Yeah, I can understand that. I wasn't trying to challenge your journalist integrity. As you noted, it wasn't a controversial piece. I was simply saying that trying for a comment in such a small time frame by email is pointless since a response in that time is very unlikely. I was thinking either a phone call or publishing right away as alternatives.

jkincaid 17y ago
Actually Facebook tends to be quite responsive. They have a general press Email address that goes to something like ten PR people, so it isn't unusual to get a response within ten minutes (or at least a note saying that someone is looking into the issue).
- tsally 17y ago
  Ah, then I understand where you were coming from. Definitely did not know that when I made my original comment. :)
  - dc2k08 17y ago
    The TC post does hint at a serious motive for the prank though. ...And something else about teaching us to contact them before posting.
    - arithmetic 17y ago
      I love the fact that the feature (of faxing photos) actually works. Telling sign of true geeks.
      - rhodin 17y ago
        Yeah quite cool, hope they'll roll out this feature for all of us!
        jacquesm 17y ago
        The Facebook/TechCrunch litmus test of feature design: - come up with crazy ass feature - implement in the minimal possible way - enable feature for techcrunch network only - see if they write about it - check comments on techcrunch - response bad -> yank feature, nobody the wiser, response positive -> implement feature by pulling an all nighter.
    - jacquesm 17y ago
      And everybody else. I figure that pulling a TechCrunch will go down in to history as 'getting an online publication to write something terribly wrong to teach them a lesson about journalism and fact checking'. Let's see how long it takes before someone else pulls a stunt like this on TC. Hair trigger journalism.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

scott_s 17y ago

If waiting 24 minutes to get basic information for a story is a "pretty long time in the blogging world," then maybe there's something wrong with the blogging world.

rapind 17y ago
Of course there is! Shame on the journalist who gives us what we want! Who's traffic spikes when they practice what we consider sketchy... right before we ourselves go read the article. Sometimes I even read the terrible article before I complain about it's integrity. I really wish these guys would show more integrity than me, and simply ignore the fact that I lap up whatever they post.
- mighty 17y ago
  It's a lot more efficient for the journalist to maintain integrity in the authoring of information than it is to have every reader scrutinize that information for a lack of it.
  - rapind 17y ago
    Agreed. That does seem more efficient... when can we launch?
- njharman 17y ago
  > right before we ourselves go read the article. I in fact have not read the article (I refuse to waste my time/give TC a page view) because they represent crap and I want crap to wither and die. Principals, some people try to live by them.
  - rapind 17y ago
    I think that's great. I sometimes read crap though. I get sucked in by those OMG THE WORLD IS ENDING AND YOU NEED TO READ THIS TO LIVE type headlines... even though I know better I still click on it. You're a more disciplined man than I, and it's good to know some people are making the effort to keep them honest.

jacquesm 17y ago

I'm sorry, I don't buy that. If a new facebook feature is reason enough to throw all reason and caution overboard then how can we ever trust anything TechCrunch writes to begin with. Surely the world does not lose anything critical if you verify if what you see is not an anomaly but an actual released feature ? No press release ? No statement on a blog somewhere ? No verification from FB ? Run the presses, we've got a scoop! It really does sound ridiculous, 24 minutes for 'something like this' makes it sound as though the appearance of a new feature in facebook is of earth shattering importance. By falling for this prank you may have shot yourselves worse in the foot than you realize. First you lost a bunch of respect about the Twitter documents, now you prove that you do not care about the accuracy of your stories as long as you get them out first. TechCrunch depends on readers believing that what TechCrunch writes is true, and verifiably so. I'll bet you the next feature that facebook launches will be thoroughly researched by you before you hit 'submit'. Or did you not put some procedures in place after this fairly good example of a social engineering hack ?

jkincaid 17y ago
Right, because websites regularly roll out fake features that need verification as to whether they actually exist or not? I wasn't contacting them to verify if it was real — clearly they were rolling it out to people (though obviously on a very limited basis). I was contacting them to figure out their logic for implementing such a bizarre feature.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > Right, because websites regularly roll out fake features that need verification as to whether they actually exist or not? Well, you have one datapoint more now than you did last week ;) Lets hope the counter gets stuck at '1'. > I wasn't contacting them to verify if it was real — clearly they were rolling it out to people (though obviously on a very limited basis). Yes, why bother verifying something that even the first couple of posters on your site immediately classified as a hoax ? 5:29 original post 5:37, all of 8 minutes later, Rob Abbott: please tell me this is a joke 5:39: bad april fools joke, Stephen Ausman 5:41: Matt Harwood: I call hoax So, if you consider it bizarre enough to contact them, your readers point out that it is in all likelihood a hoax you still contradict them. After all, it so completely makes sense for facebook to implement this, what with the popular demand for this feature and all. After all, every 'expert' in the industry is well aware of the rise of fax usage between the users of social networks. Elsewhere you say that facebook usually responds very well, and that a response within 10 minutes isn't unusual. So, in spite of them normally responding amazingly fast you did not have the courtesy to wait for their response ? Must be hard to let go of a scoop. I'm really happy that if it would have been damaging that you would have at least waited a little longer and that you would have tried to contact more people. But effectively that says: "If it would have been damaging then we would have run it regardless". Just 20 minutes and a couple of emails later maybe. Class act.

coliveira 17y ago

In fact 24 min is the time they took to write that article. They really didn't wait even a single minute before writing it :-)