Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pogue and the Bogusness of Advanced Gadget Reviews

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the i-don't-think-bogusness-is-a-word dept.

Jordan Golson writes "New York Times gadget reviewer David Pogue got into an email back-and-forth with Valleywag after he was tricked into writing an article by advance misinformation on a pre-launch product. In theory, it's good for reviewers to test and write up products before release day, so consumers can make informed choices. In practice, Pogue and we wish the industry standard would change." Personally I think this is why blogs are great- if a product sells 100,000 units, it only takes a few dozen bloggers to encounter problems for the truth to come out. Of course, that doesn't help you if you want to pre-order.

5 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. No no no no no by styryx · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Pogue and we..."

    Just no.

    1. Re:No no no no no by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's unconventional ("we and pogue" would be more idiomatic), but I don't think it's ungrammatical; note that this is a subject, not an object (hence "we", not "us"). Am I missing something? It's grammatically correct, but it's very awkward. The grouping of the collective "we" on an equal footing with "Pogue" strains the mental picture of "we". This grouping, intimating a close association, is such that Pogue would naturally be assumed to be part of the "we" in question, so puzzlement ensues when he is not. It's just bad writing. Being an active part of the conversation in question, Pogue should have been included in the collective "we". Alternately, Valleywag could have used a collective pronoun for itself in a subordinate clause to show the separation. Any of the following would have been better:

      "We all wish..."
      "Both Pogue and we at Valleywag wish..."
      "Pogue wishes (as do we at Valleywag) that..."

      It also doesn't help that the /. blurb says "Jordan Golson writes" followed by nothing but a quote lifted from the article, which Jordan Golson certainly did not write, followed by some opinion from CmdrTaco. This sets up a situation where the identity of the "we" in question is thoroughly obfuscated. The original line was marginally acceptable, in a casual online writing sort of way, but it thoroughly lost its footing when it achieved four degrees of separation from the original conversation with Mr. Pogue.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  2. Re:not a "gadget" review by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Informative

    Exactly. I actually RTFA (both of Pogue's and both of Valleywag's), and I kept looking for the stinging indictment of Pogue as a reviewer who "writes whatever you tell him to." Advance reviews are bogus because of golden samples and lavish press junkets. They are not bogus because the manufacturer might change the pricing at the last minute.

  3. Re:not a "gadget" review by Otter · · Score: 3, Informative

    I completely concur. He quoted prices that were correct when he wrote them and were changed while (or after) the issue was in press. I don't see where he did anything inappropriate at all.

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  4. Re:Consumer Reports only reports on buyable stuff by Animats · · Score: 3, Informative

    That becomes a problem when you are considering custom installations, bundled products and services of every sort.

    Not really. They use secret buyers for that.