Arriving at “the truth”

"Any idiot can write a review based on 30 minutes of searches"

That means in 30 minutes of using Technorati you concluded that MS and Google are incompetent and decided to blog about it.

Why not just STOP with the knee jerk, poorly researched posts instead of relying on your audience to do the fact checking for you. Otherwise, what reason is there to visit your blog?

Re. #1, I think anyone can do a mistake - my first comments on the many previous bugs took place not knowing they had just sort of re-launched an hour before, thus, I cannot say they apply to the new 'version'. Robert got enthusiastic and blogged about it, without first doing some side-by-side comparisons, which certainly would take more than an hour (same goes for re-checking the bugs & issues).

At least, he had the decency to own up and admit to it, something many bloggers I know would not have done. One comment on this however, Robert, why didn't you file this post under the same tags as the previous ones (including Technorati), it would have made more sense, and people tag-searching would get both sides of the story.

Skc, There is an obvious reason to visit Robert's blog and that is to be able to prove that you are superior by criticizing his errors. That is a great value! ;) Of course, this is his personal blog and he makes no claims to be a reputable source of information. He's just sharing what's on his mind just like all the other bloggers.

Robert, Thanks for the reminder of the gift that is the Blogosphere. Imagine the possibilities... I see online media as a mechanism for grass roots organizations, entrepreneurs, activists, cultural visionaries, etc. to come together and have a bigger impact on the evolution of the culture. That's what you get when you combine a life coach and a video blogger, I guess. Thanks (again) for inspiring me!

You must be the Gandhi you wish to see in the world.

Heather Flanagan
VisualizePossibilities.com

You could always fact check yourself, but that's actual work, and would get in the way. That's the essential dishonesty of the process. Making other people clean up after you isn't "better", or "more democratic". It simply means that you realized that you don't have to do a damned thing beyond regurgitating what anyone tells you, and when you're wrong, regurgitating THAT.

But online is the only place where you can say “hey, wait a minute!”

Bullshit. It may be the only place where you get to see your name up in electrons, but ask any news editor who printed a story with a factual error about how fast the corrections from the readers come in.

Just because you don't like everything that isn't a blog doesn't make blogs better.

Skc: I expect my reader to be smart too. If I have a post out within an hour of when something new launches I'd expect that reader to know that that post was based on an hour's worth of work.

I'm not a testing lab. If you're expecting me to run 1,000 searches and be as thorough as Consumer Reports you'll be sorely disappointed. Heck, even after Consumer Reports runs through its tests I rarely agree with the conclusions myself.

John: I've been around the block enough times that factual errors rarely get fixed in traditional media. My first interview in college with Steve Wozniak started with "don't believe a single thing you read about me in the San Jose Mercury News."

This world is a LOT better than the old one.

And this is my personal opinion. I didn't represent my first opinions about Technorati as in-depth science.

In fact, I still stand by my opinions. I like the new Technorati better than Google's Blog Search.

While I agree with those saying that a blog is for funtime. I think that A-list bloggers should be held to a higher degree of responsibility than say, somebody blogging about their cat or how they simply can't stand the Bush administration, or how they drank too much moonshine last night and passed out in their own vomit.

Somebody who's entire reputation is based on their journalism, who gets free chairs and trips to Cancun based on that on a regular basis SHOULD do some fact checking and be held to some higher standard.

Otherwise the companies sponsoring such events really should fly the guy posting pictures of his kitties playing with yarn instead.

My 2 cents.

John: I’ve been around the block enough times that factual errors rarely get fixed in traditional media. My first interview in college with Steve Wozniak started with “don’t believe a single thing you read about me in the San Jose Mercury News.”

That's nice. Evidently that entire "corrections" section that every paper i've ever read, and still read, uses for such things is removed from your world.

At some point, while you're going 'round the block with Woz and his wonderful world of Segway Polo, how about doing some fact checking on your own instead of suckering your readership into doing your work for you.

"That’s nice. Evidently that entire “corrections” section that every paper i’ve ever read, and still read, uses for such things is removed from your world."

I can vouch for this, I have seen papers print corrections and retractions as well. I've even seen TV shows do it.

Perhaps what this incident should teach us is that blogging really shouldn't be taken very seriously, and is a lesser tool in the journalism toolkit.

Anything posted on a blog is eclipsed by the amount of effort that goes into a printed or televised story. The reason for that is not only fact checking, but taking the time to review the whole picture and make sure that people really understand it, with a well conveyed story.

John - as one of the readers who "fact-checked" the previous post, I think you're way off base here. I don't see this as a 100% reliable news source. Scoble's article intrigued me, so I investigated; I disagreed, so I commented. Within a day have already seen some great discussion about the topic - including a concession! What more could I ask for? :)

As a temporary participant in this blog's readership, I see very little comparison to the sure-it-exists-but-it's-useless "corrections" section of a newspaper, or even "letters to the editor". Can't quantify it, but I've never been compelled to read any of those sections, much less write in.

Now I'll go disappear to read the rest of my feeds for a while, and maybe Robert will post something that draws me in again someday. (Meanwhile, sorry for feeding the trolls guys)

Chris: I know that newspapers "correct" things. I used to correct things when I worked on newspapers too. But they DO NOT correct EVERYTHING.

Hell, I've had "professional" journalists outright lie about me without providing a correction. So get off of it.

I just wanted to know that Google Blog Search from my personal experience has more results than Technorati - i.e. Technorati is not finding all blogs that link to some blog!

In other words: this purchase has for Google more prestige value than technological value...

@3 "he makes no claims to be a reputable source of information"

Really? Then why does he say he reads eleventythousand blogs and pulls out the "good stuff" so we don't have to? Why does he say bloggers should be thought of as journalists?

@11 Exactly. Can anyone say "Dan Rather"?

But, that shouldn't excuse you from at least TRYING to get your facts right before posting.

quote: But online is the only place where you can say “hey, wait a minute!” /quote

Amen to that and to comment #10

Newspapers and other media will have arrived when they not only allow easy access to reader/viewer comments, but also require that at least some interaction with the article author take place.

I've corrected numerous factual errors in newspaper articles, generally by e-mail, but also in comments sections when available. Rarely do I have the satisfaction of seeing an actual acknowledgments of the error though. I'm not looking for *personal* recognition, just an admission of error in the original.

My guess is that many/most mainstream journalists rebel from this new interactivity with readers, but I think in the future, the successful ones will embrace it.

@14

Dan Rather was fired. His reputation went down the toilet. You can't compare Dan Rather to this blog.

I was reading Scoble's blog and a hockey game broke out... again.

@16 I think you may have misunderstood my point. I was agreeing with Scoble on his point that MSM doesn't always make corrections, even when they know what they are reporting is not true. And I used Rather as the example.

That said, Scoble seems to want to have it both ways. He wants bloggers to be thought of as journalists...except when they don't do the type of fact checking and research that credible journalists do. Then it's okay for a blogger to be lazy and let the community point out when they are wrong. Utlimately is seems all of that is fine, because they've achieved their primary purpose...getting read and linked.

1) as a number of people point out, Scoble 'fessed up (and NO-ONE DIED, people!)
2) I read blogs like Scobleizer for news and trends and commentary - not as encyclopaedias. Ditto the comments.
3) Why does a blog have to be like a newspaper? What's fundamentally wrong with someone, in close to real time, expressing an opinion and getting corrected?

Because Robert and all the others want it both ways. They want bloggers to be taken exactly as seriously as the Times and other mainstream media, but they don't want bloggers to be held to the same standard. People FLIPPED out about Rather, yet in the "blogosphere", there's thousands of Rathers a day. But it's somehow okay there.

Robert's not even TRYING to hide his double standard anymore:

Chris: I know that newspapers “correct” things. I used to correct things when I worked on newspapers too. But they DO NOT correct EVERYTHING.

And bloggers have a perfect record here? WTF, either hold bloggers to this same level of perfection you want out of mainstream media, or STFU about it already. You want to be taken seriously ala "real" news outlets, then start applying that standard of perfection to bloggers too, and that doesn't mean "Screw facts, the readers will do the work for me".

You're intellectually lazy when you spout that shit Robert.

That's all that "oh, isn't it wonderful how readers catch my errors" is: Laziness. You don't want to be bothered with doing the work to check out the echo chamber, so you just increase the volume and let your readers fix it for you.

In fact, you point to that intellectual laziness with PRIDE, and use it to somehow elevate you above the same people you castigate for not being perfect before they publish.

Hell, I’ve had “professional” journalists outright lie about me without providing a correction. So get off of it.

If you're even attempting to insinuate that bloggers are bastions of integrity and truthfulness, then all I can ask is:

Aren't you even a little afraid that there's a Hell?

When did I ever expect to be taken as seriously as the Times?

When I speak on stage I admit that blogs (including mine) have posted incorrect information, have been hoaxed, and have gotten things wrong. In the worst of cases blogs are corrupted by freebies or advertising dollars too.

I don't remember ever claiming these things weren't true.

But, where online media excels is when the audience gets involved. I can't read what the CTO of Pandora thinks of Walt Mossberg's column on paper. But I can read that here.

I can't see what the audience thinks of all the Anna Nicole Smith coverage on CNN. But I can see that here.

I can't follow the unfiltered daily thinking of the CEOs of the Dallas Mavericks or Sun Microsystems in paper, on TV, or on the radio. But I can follow those online.

I don’t remember ever claiming these things weren’t true.

No, you just hold mainstream media to a standard that you refuse to hold bloggers too, yet you want bloggers to be taken just as seriously as mainstream media. If you expect better accuracy from one, then you damned well better start holding your precious "blogosphere" to it as well, or just admit that you want all the benefits and none of the responsibilities.

But, where online media excels is when the audience gets involved. I can’t read what the CTO of Pandora thinks of Walt Mossberg’s column on paper. But I can read that here.

Stop confusing latency with possibility. It is bullshit to suggest that you "cannot" read what the CTO of Pandora thinks of Mossberg's column on paper. It would simply take longer for you to do so.

I can’t see what the audience thinks of all the Anna Nicole Smith coverage on CNN. But I can see that here.

Again, this is neither a physical nor technical impossibility, but rather a victim of your bathing in the Flavor-Aid that you helped create.

I can’t follow the unfiltered daily thinking of the CEOs of the Dallas Mavericks or Sun Microsystems in paper, on TV, or on the radio. But I can follow those online.

You show me the hard proof that those are all unfiltered. That none of those people edit shit either mentally or via some other process before it's put on a web site. Verifiable proof Robert, you DO remember what that is, right? Just in case you've forgotten:

verify |ˈverəˌfī| verb ( -fies, -fied) [ trans. ] (often be verified) make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified : his conclusions have been verified by later experiments | [with clause ] “Can you verify that the guns are licensed?” • Law swear to or support (a statement) by affidavit. DERIVATIVES verifiable |ˈverəˌfīəbəl; ˌverəˈfī-| adjective

Show us verifiable proof that neither of those two have ever filtered anything on their blog in any way, shape or form.

As well, again, if Mark Cuban or Jonathan Schwartz wanted to get themselves an Op-Ed column in their local papers, i'm pretty sure it wouldn't be anything close to "impossible" for them to do so.

Just because you don't like anything that isn't from the intarweb doesn't make your belief system a set of facts.

@21 Good grief, Scoble. What? Don't have a radio in your car. I can turn on the RADIO every day and hear what people are thinking...in real time. So, don't give us that crap that only the blogosphere gives one unfettered insight into what people are thinking.

Remind me again why you are writing a column for Fast Company? Surely it's not just for the money and exposure, is it?

#23: yeah, right, like Talk Radio is really a conversation. I used to listen to KGO in San Francisco (one of the best in the world) and they'd cut people off before they could even make a point. Getting through is almost impossible.

A guy like you would never even be allowed to be on the air.

#23: yeah, right, like Talk Radio is really a conversation. I used to listen to KGO in San Francisco (one of the best in the world) and they’d cut people off before they could even make a point. Getting through is almost impossible.

Oh bullshit, like Blogs are a true "conversation". Can anyone *initiate* a topic on your blog? No. We have to wait for YOU to do it. That's not a true conversation, that's commenting on a speech. Web Forums where anyone can initiate a topic are true conversations.

Welcome to yet another Intarweb Myth. The truth is, blogs are about as much a conversation as the State of the Union address.

@24. Again you miss the point. You basically implied that blogs are the only place in "media" where one can have a two way conversation. Clearly that is not accurate. Blogs just basically an on line version of talk radio. You as a blogger, choose the topic to be discussed. In a true "conversation" either party can choose the topic. And, just like in talk radio, a blogger can cut off the conversation any time he wants, by either deleting comments (which I know you don't do, but I'm talking about blogging in general), or refusing to continue to respond to comments. So, explain to me where the vast difference s between blogging and other media forms is? Other than latency in print media, I really don't see the huge differences. In blogging the BLOGGER controls the topic. How is that a "conversation"? And how is that different than any other medium?

"A guy like you would never even be allowed to be on the air."

Relevance to the "conversation", please? Nice attempt at an insult, but I don't see how that was related to my point.

Here you can get your own blog. And I don't control the comments here. I might set the top line agenda, but you're plenty welcome to change that in the comments.

But, back to the topic. If you think I'm an idiot you can go over to Blogger, TypePad, Wordpress, Spaces, and open yourself a blog and start showing the world how to do a blog properly.

Now, go to KGO and try to get your own radio talk show.

By their very nature, blogs encourage the debate. Chris, John C. Welch, LayZ et al - by simply posting your comments on here you’re discrediting yourselves - a blog post generates the debate, it encourages people to take the information they’ve got and actually THINK about it. Question it, argue it, scream blue-bloody-murder at it, it’s made you think about it and provided the opportunity to comment on it. You've posted a response and indulged your pedantry by putting Scoble right there at the end of your keyboard, ready to respond to your argument. Take a step back and have a better look.

It’s a bloody conversation! Regardless of your newspaper corrections pages, your on-air discussions or your ’strongly worded letter to the editor’, blogs are letting you voice your opinion in an unfettered tirade. You think that Robert's got somethign wrong so your saying so.

Would any traditional media you know print/broadcast for 27 responses to the same story? Doubtful!