3 ms·

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

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.
- lawrence 17y ago
  Wow, that's way harsh. This wasn't a he said / she said piece of gossip. This was a feature that they saw on Facebook.com, that they reported. They are a tech news site and all. Lighten up.
scott_s 17y ago
Then what story is there? If you know what I know, then I have no reason to read what you say.

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.

lawrence 17y ago
Wow, that's way harsh. This wasn't a he said / she said piece of gossip. This was a feature that they saw on Facebook.com, that they reported. They are a tech news site and all. Lighten up.

scott_s 17y ago

Then what story is there? If you know what I know, then I have no reason to read what you say.