>>Reviews have limited word counts. They cannot go into great detail. >>The writer has almost zero control over what ends up in print. >> >>Reviews have to appear balanced. Unless the product is universally >>revered by everyone in the computing community, they have to point >>out at least one flaw. > >Kee, et al: > >So when I asked, "...is this garbage just one more example of the >focus on form instead of substance (read that lack of depth of >research) that is typical of software reviewers?", the answer is >"yes".
I would agree with you. My reaction was to blaming Stephan and I think he did a great job within the confines he was given. If they did indepth reviews, the question to be asked is which reviews would have been cut, a programming environment used by a small percentage of macworld readers or some graphic tool used by a large percentage. I too ask myself about my macWorld subscription each year for exactly the same reasons. Kee > >I'm not upset because the article exposed Revolution's "Achilles' >heel". I agree the overall tone of the article is positive. > >But each year as I see the size of Macworld get smaller, the >percentage of the pages devoted to advertising get larger, and the >software reviews get shallower, I have to ask myself why I still >subscribe. >-- > >Rob Cozens >CCW, Serendipity Software Company >http://www.oenolog.com/who.htm > >"And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three; >Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee." > >from "The Triple Foole" by John Donne (1572-1631) >_______________________________________________ >use-revolution mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
