When readers bite (because reviewers don’t)
If you wondered at all whether the commenting system on review sites might work, then waltz over to this dire review of Windows Media Player 11.
Then read the comments. Yeow. And it’s true, the comments are far more informative than the review.
For annoyance, though, nothing can beat the way that CNet snips up perfectly readable articles into tiny, twitching, image-infested pieces of non-information, such as a review of Firefox 2 vs Internet Explorer 7, which Ed Bott nominated as the Worst. Review. Ever. - although he did say that the WMP11 one above runs it close.
If you’re not reading Ed’s blog, why not? (Yes, I know, I seem to be sending everyone away from here at the moment - first to Chris, now this. Just call me the grey Goo-gle.)
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- A quick survey: does anyone believe surveys? (27 July 2004; score: 37.68%)
- Sorry, but I'm not sympathetic to the Guardian's gap blogger (21 February 2008; score: 30.94%)
- Wait, no, don't stop reading this! (12 March 2007; score: 25.87%)




November 7th, 2006 at 10:13 am
[…] There are constant complaints, in all areas, that the media is “dumbing down”. But it hadn’t really occurred to me until reading Charles Arthur’s blog just now that the same is happening in the tech press. […]
November 8th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Is this not what happens when everyone is a journo / reviewer / avid fan / blogger - the quality just drops, especially as these new “writers” are all feted by legions of PRs? At least the list of complaints makes for heartening reading as net users just won’t stand for it…
November 8th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
@Crawford: it shouldn’t be (that the quality just drops). I mean, aren’t reviewers meant to be people who’ll think of the wrinkles, who know their way around usability, don’t play favourites, ask what’s missing..
Actually the more I write in this response the less I’m able to think of reviewers who do fit that bill. Steve Wildstrom at Businessweek, certainly. Any more?