What would be REALLY helpful is to let CFDJ know how you all feel. Alan is
right--there's no conspiracy going on; just a desire to fill pages. What
they did isn't defensible, but the only way they'll know is if people let
them know what they like and what they don't like. Honestly, you'd be
shocked how much of an impact even a single email has. I'll make it even
easier: the email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seriously, the only outside feedback
they get is from people who care enough to email them and it is taken very
seriously. (In fact, you could even put in a plug for your favorite
col...;-)
Hal Helms
== See www.ColdFusionTraining.com for info on "Best Practices with
ColdFusion & Fusebox" training, Jan 22-25 ==
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin S. Rogers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 6:59 PM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: arguments **against** fusebox
I read that article a few weeks ago and didn't realize that the writer had
an interest in the product that got the most favorable reviews. I
subsequently went and signed up for the trial.
Now that I've read this thread, I would have to agree, as a reader who has
been deceived by CFDJ and Infrastructure Inc., I would have to agree that
their practices are very questionable.
Benjamin S. Rogers
Web Developer, c4.net
voice: (508) 240-0051
fax: (508) 240-0057
-----Original Message-----
From: McCollough, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 11:59 AM
To: Fusebox
Subject: RE: arguments **against** fusebox
Okay, I've written for CFDJ, and plan to do so in the future, but I also
have a long history in the publishing industry. Here is my slant on the
whole issue
CFDJ is but one of a family of publications put out by SYS-CON publishing.
The actual page assembly itself is done by folks who apparently work on
Macs, using QuarkXPress. This isn't bad a'tall, actually its great from an
electronic pre-press standpoint. BuTtTtTt, do remember, their primary
business is SELLING ADVERTISING and SELLING SUBSCRIPTIONS. That's where the
rubber meets the road.
Now, you cannot sell advertising unless you have readers. You cannot attract
readers unless you have articles to for the readers to read. Their entire
biosphere consists of subscribers and advertisers, with money being the
oxygen that drives the whole thing. Articles are what they need to pry money
out of reader's pockets. Lots of articles. Ask somebody who writes on a
regular basis, such as Hal, and I'm sure he'll tell you it takes a lotta
time to write a good article, and you come nowhere near recovering your
expenses on what you receive as payment.
As a magazine editor, you need, desperately need, new articles for each
issue, and not just new articles, but new articles on whatever the 'hot'
topic of the month is. Therefore, if somebody totally unfamiliar to the
Fusebox ship of fools does a lame-o review of the Fusebox Methodology book,
as far as the editor is concerned, that's another page of print taken care
of.
CFDJ is not a million-subscriber publication that is gonna have a staff of
editorial reviewers. There are -not- going to be investigative phone calls,
gumshoe detective work, or down-in-the-trenches street journalism work being
done. Its gonna be a "Here's an article. Is it ok? Good! Print it!"
operation.
I don't say that as a slam against CFDJ, cuz' if I was operating the place
it would probably be the same.
So what to do? Use this to your advantage!
Fuseboxers, unite and start writing a slew of articles! Create code snips
that are Fuseboxed! Write reviews of products and describe how they
integrate into Fusebox! Basically, let's turn CFDJ into FBDJ!
Alan McCollough
Web Programmer
Allaire Certified ColdFusion Developer
Alaska Native Medical Center
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 2:23 PM
> To: Fusebox
> Subject: Re: arguments **against** fusebox
>
> I can't bite my tongue any longer. CFDJ has for several months been
> pushing
> the limits when it comes to journalism ethics. Having the a writer who's
> financially invested in one of several products he's reviewing is highly
> questionable and at least just looks really bad, now matter how well it's
> done. Then to throw in a FREE methodology into a comparison of NOT FREE
> products, slam it on false facts, is all together incredible.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Rick
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Structure your ColdFusion code with Fusebox. Get the official book at
http://www.fusionauthority.com/bkinfo.cfm
Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
