2015-08-21 4:15 GMT+02:00 :
> On 2015-08-20 22:10, toki wrote:
>
>> On 20/08/15 10:12, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
>>
>> I should get a job writing these kinds of reviews
>>>
>>
>> Why are you assuming that a human-being wrote the review?
>> It has most of the hallmarks of a bot-written review.
>>
in agreement, seemed like an ad. for MSFT ;-)
From: Gabriele Ponzo
Date: Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] LibreOffice 5.0 Review & Rating | PCMag.com
To: Steve Edmonds
Cc: users@global.libreoffice.org
I've always believed that PC Mag is in M$&
On 2015-08-20 22:10, toki wrote:
On 20/08/15 10:12, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
I should get a job writing these kinds of reviews
Why are you assuming that a human-being wrote the review?
It has most of the hallmarks of a bot-written review.
EASY MONEY!
The days of the paid, professional r
On 20/08/15 10:12, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> I should get a job writing these kinds of reviews
Why are you assuming that a human-being wrote the review?
It has most of the hallmarks of a bot-written review.
> EASY MONEY!
The days of the paid, professional reviewer are numbered.
>From one sid
On 08/20/2015 06:12 AM, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> I miss the depth of old BYTE! magazine reviews.
I have every print issue of Byte on my shelf, right from the first,
Sept. 1975. I bought my first subscription, at the Ottawa Hamfest in
1975, from the original publisher, Wayne Green.
--
To uns
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 12:15 +0100, Mike Scott wrote:
> Well, it looks like a 4.0 review to me. Firefox gives page info as
> published time: 2013-05-01T16:57:00+00:00
I get a LO 5.0 review... but it is OK, you aren't missing anything. It
is a pretty typical drive-by rubbish review which spends mos
On 19/08/15 23:05, Steve Edmonds wrote:
...
Mike, check the URL you end up at from that link. I get redirected to
http://au.pcmag.com/libreoffice-40/2249/review/libreoffice-40 from the
www.pcmag.com site.
Steve
http://uk.pcmag.com/office-suites-products/2249/review/libreoffice
Somewhat diff
James Knott wrote:
> On 08/18/2015 04:24 PM, zed wrote:
> > James Knott wrote:
> >
> > > I just came across this article.
> >>
> >>
> >
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
> >>
> > The review seems
On 2015-08-20 08:06, mxk wrote:
Thank you Mike Scott for imparting a bit of Firefox knowledge that I
was unaware of. Now, if I can only remember it.
Upon employing that skill, we get: "Modified: Wednesday, August 19,
2015 3:58:41 PM", establishing that PC Mag has indeed somehow arranged
to
Thank you Mike Scott for imparting a bit of Firefox knowledge that I was
unaware of. Now, if I can only remember it.
Upon employing that skill, we get: "Modified: Wednesday, August 19, 2015
3:58:41 PM", establishing that PC Mag has indeed somehow arranged to
have two sites with the same addres
On 19/08/15 18:07, mxk wrote:
...
I don't know how to find the Firefox "page info" he cites, but its May,
2013 date is telling.
Right-click in the page and pick 'page info'.
There's something unusual about the site (clearly!) -- I've just tried
an ancient IE in a VM -- it puts up the "4.0" p
List Ahoy:
It is perturbing to see that different parties can click on the same
link, and see dramatically different results.
We have been blaming it on an antipodal bias, but now Mike Scott weighs
in from the near-arctic with the same distortion.
I don't know how to find the Firefox "page
When I click the link in either Chrome or Firefox, I go to a Libreoffice
5.0 review dated August 17, 2015.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Mike Scott
wrote:
> On 19/08/15 12:07, James Knott wrote:
>
>> On 08/18/2015 04:24 PM, zed wrote:
>>
>>> James Knott wrote:
>>>
>>> I just came across this
On 19/08/15 12:07, James Knott wrote:
On 08/18/2015 04:24 PM, zed wrote:
James Knott wrote:
I just came across this article.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
The review seems to be of Li
Well, eventually we had to find _someone_ who actually liked the
ribbon, and apparently it is this reviewer.
Regards,
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Piet van Oostrum
wrote:
> zed wrote:
>
> > James Knott wrote:
> >
> > > I just came across this article.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.p
zed wrote:
> James Knott wrote:
>
> > I just came across this article.
> >
> >
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
> >
> >
>
> The review seems to be of LibreOfice v4.0. So, a littl
On 08/18/2015 04:24 PM, zed wrote:
> James Knott wrote:
>
>> I just came across this article.
>>
>>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
>>
> The review seems to be of LibreOfice v4.0. So, a little
James Knott wrote:
> I just came across this article.
>
>
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
>
>
The review seems to be of LibreOfice v4.0. So, a little out of date :-)
David
--
zed
A "runnin
On 2015-08-19 12:55, James Knott wrote:
On 08/18/2015 07:23 PM, Steve Edmonds wrote:
Hi. Is this a review for LO 4? When I click on the link I get a review
for 4.0
It says 5.0, when I click on the link.
Must be a redirect because that link takes me to
http://au.pcmag.com/libreoffice-40/2249
On 08/18/2015 07:46 PM, Gabriele Ponzo wrote:
> I've always believed that PC Mag is in M$'s payroll and this article just
> confirms my thoughts.
> Il 19/ago/2015 01:24, "Steve Edmonds" ha
It's been that way for at least 20 years!
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffi
On 08/18/2015 07:23 PM, Steve Edmonds wrote:
> Hi. Is this a review for LO 4? When I click on the link I get a review
> for 4.0
It says 5.0, when I click on the link.
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-list
I've always believed that PC Mag is in M$'s payroll and this article just
confirms my thoughts.
Il 19/ago/2015 01:24, "Steve Edmonds" ha
scritto:
> Hi. Is this a review for LO 4? When I click on the link I get a review for
> 4.0
> Steve
>
> On 2015-08-19 06:22, James Knott wrote:
>
>> I just came
Hi. Is this a review for LO 4? When I click on the link I get a review
for 4.0
Steve
On 2015-08-19 06:22, James Knott wrote:
I just came across this article.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
gt; Subject: [libreoffice-users] LibreOffice 5.0 Review & Rating | PCMag.com
>
> I just came across this article.
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
>
>
--
To unsu
spouting off a little. )
Dan
Original message
From: James Knott
Date:08/18/2015 2:22 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: LibreOffice
Subject: [libreoffice-users] LibreOffice 5.0 Review & Rating | PCMag.com
I just came across this article.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00
I just came across this article.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418419,00.asp?mailing_id=1431647&mailing=whatsnewnow&mailingID=E2768DCC83E0602F9C1DB70A73032992
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: users+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-list
26 matches
Mail list logo
