[/QB]I guess that's where we differ: I expect rumor sites to post fabricated stories based on shreds of truth. To me, they are like tabloids.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
There's a difference between posting rumors and posting pure, unedited bullshit. I read once on MacOS Rumors more than two years ago about voice recognition on MacOS X (this was pre-public beta). Meader said that the voice recognition built into the operating system was phenominal, and that this technology was demonstrated to him and 19 other people by an Apple employee speaking commands at a powerbook from across the room. Back then I was pretty naive when it came to rumors so that got me excited. Of course, it never bore fruit. This is the kind of thing that Meader posts that make people hate him. And, to make it worse, he has this overly condescending, vain tone in his posts which most people see as extremely arrogant and annoying, especially considering his track record.
See, I understand the need for rumors in the Mac world, I really do. But at least try to make them credible or at the very least add a disclaimer saying something along the lines as 'the source has not been verified.' I mean, granted, it's a rumor site and anything not confirmed is a rumor, but I think more people would like Meader if he cut out the annoying 'love to hear myself speak' tone all of his updates overflow with. I mean, anyone can start a rumor site and keep it interesting and maybe even accurate sometimes, but for the love of God,
Put yourselves in the shoes of someone running a rumor site for a moment. Suppose you get an e-mail from someone who claims inside information that G5 PMs will be released next week. The level of detail and internal consistency makes it seem plausible - so how are you supposed to "check it out?" Call Steve Jobs? Write the guy back and ask if he's telling the truth?
All you could really do is throw it away, or post the it with a comment to the effect of, "I got this e-mail, so I thought I'd share it. It's truthfulness is unknown." MOSR makes statements like that routinely - but its critics here seem to ignore the editorial comments. Simply posting a rumor does not imply that the editor believes it. A case in point is the "G5 Dodecahedron" rumor last December. Meader clearly stated on the page that he thought it was bogus, but he was ridiculed here repeatedly for posting it as though he thought it was true. SpyMac's way of handling it is through their "poll" of reader's opinions - keeping an even greater editorial distance from the rumors.
A truly effective rumor site would be one with a mole (or several) inside the industry with whom they could develop a level of trust over the long term. Unfortunately, such a relationship would cost the moles their jobs if they were discovered, so it's generally not going to happen. Consequently, the only rumors running around are the "I heard it from my uncle's cousin's brother-in-law" type that are utterly unverifiable. With these, I would just as soon they posted them so I can decide for myself whether or not its bogus. I am at the mercy of the editors, though, for their truthfulness as to the source of the rumor. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open for unscrupulous site operators to totally fabricate stuff out of thin air, and then claim it is a "rumor." I think this is the charge against Meader, but I don't see any easy way to verify it. It's possible that the voice recognition demo really did happen (OS X does have pretty good voice recognition built in). We have no way of knowing for sure. So, caveat emptor.
The other option is to do like AI. It's is keeping its reputation for truthfulness squeaky clean by never posting any rumors at all.
1. a generally circulated story, report, or statement without facts to confirm its truth
2. general talk or opinion of uncertain reliability
okay people - what is it about the above definition that gives people so much confusion?
Mac Sack Black, judging by the tone of your posts, I'd say you got burned by a rumor site... chill out guy
[quote] Meader, you're an
embarrassment; get off the web.
<hr></blockquote>
It's statements like this that just make me laugh - you don't want to go to his site? Don't friggin' go. It's not like someone's holding a gun to your head. It says *in the name of his site* that they are rumors - reread definition above. Expecting confirmed truth in a rumors site would mean it's no longer a rumors site now wouldn't it?
So RansomRiot gets his kicks out of duping people, good for him, I hope he was amused for a long long time. But don't, repeat *do not* immediately turn around and slag mosr for actually printing what you said. It's his prerogative, he pays for the domain and the hosting (and anyone that wants to give him money is allowed to do that too). We've all got free will here people. And most of us are smart enough to take the rumors with a grain of salt.
From what I can see from this thread is that people are frustrated that used to go to rumor sites because it was FUN! Once it went beyond FUN it became oh so serious : translation not so fun, pathetic, actually damaging to future company announcements. And please lets not get into can this hurt Apple? In the wrong way of course it can. So after Apple had seen enough they went about stopping leaks and the sites have all but dried up. Now they almost have to make up their content.
The thing I find puzzeling is that you guys always pick on MOSR when they all are pretty much just as bad. Yes, this includes AI which hasn't posted anything new for almost a year. If you don't post anything then I guess you're safe from making anything up.
Now don't get me wrong I loved the rumor sites. It was so much fun to speculate on what Apple was going to do next. But, what happened is it's just gone to hell in a handbasket. I don't see this changing for quite a while ( if ever ). At least until Apple loses it's vendetta against rumour sites.
I guess I'm still confused as to what has folks' panties in a wad with regards to MOSR and others. Is it:
a) The stuff they post comes from unverified sources?
b) The stuff they post often turns out to be untrue?
c) They don't like the proprietors?
d) They don't post stuff often enough?
e) ???? Something else?
Responses to each:
a) Suggest how you would like them to verify their sources and their credibility. Two independent sources? How do they know it's not you and your buddy using different accounts? How can they tell if someone is lying?
b) Rumors are just that. They may be true, probably aren't. The only way to be sure of the truth is to wait until the product is released to tell about it - but then it's not a rumor, it's news. If it bothers you that many of the rumors are false, stick with news sites and leave the rumor sites alone.
c) If you don't like the proprietor of the site, avoid it. Every time you visit MOSR, Ryan Meader gets advertising money (not much, but some). No visits = no money, and MOSR dies. It's called marketplace economics.
d) Considering the number of real, verifiable reports of upcoming Apple hardware that are available (which is nearly zero), if a site publishes only those, it ends up like AI - nice bulletin board, but not an actual rumors site anymore. So, if you want to see more good stuff on the rumor sites, go to work at Apple or Motorola or IBM. Then you can send in juicy tidbits of real info (which are still unverifiable) and the number of quality postings at the rumor sites will increase dramatically - at least until you get fired.
What I'm hearing, I think, is that you want lots of good hard info about upcoming Apple products and plans on a regular basis. Well, I want a Ferrari, too, and the odds of my getting one are about the same as Apple letting that kind of information out (remember Worker Bee?), so you'd best learn to deal with it. The scraps we see on the sites are all we're going to get.
Comments
[/QB]I guess that's where we differ: I expect rumor sites to post fabricated stories based on shreds of truth. To me, they are like tabloids.
[/QB]<hr></blockquote>
There's a difference between posting rumors and posting pure, unedited bullshit. I read once on MacOS Rumors more than two years ago about voice recognition on MacOS X (this was pre-public beta). Meader said that the voice recognition built into the operating system was phenominal, and that this technology was demonstrated to him and 19 other people by an Apple employee speaking commands at a powerbook from across the room. Back then I was pretty naive when it came to rumors so that got me excited. Of course, it never bore fruit. This is the kind of thing that Meader posts that make people hate him. And, to make it worse, he has this overly condescending, vain tone in his posts which most people see as extremely arrogant and annoying, especially considering his track record.
See, I understand the need for rumors in the Mac world, I really do. But at least try to make them credible or at the very least add a disclaimer saying something along the lines as 'the source has not been verified.' I mean, granted, it's a rumor site and anything not confirmed is a rumor, but I think more people would like Meader if he cut out the annoying 'love to hear myself speak' tone all of his updates overflow with. I mean, anyone can start a rumor site and keep it interesting and maybe even accurate sometimes, but for the love of God,
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
All you could really do is throw it away, or post the it with a comment to the effect of, "I got this e-mail, so I thought I'd share it. It's truthfulness is unknown." MOSR makes statements like that routinely - but its critics here seem to ignore the editorial comments. Simply posting a rumor does not imply that the editor believes it. A case in point is the "G5 Dodecahedron" rumor last December. Meader clearly stated on the page that he thought it was bogus, but he was ridiculed here repeatedly for posting it as though he thought it was true. SpyMac's way of handling it is through their "poll" of reader's opinions - keeping an even greater editorial distance from the rumors.
A truly effective rumor site would be one with a mole (or several) inside the industry with whom they could develop a level of trust over the long term. Unfortunately, such a relationship would cost the moles their jobs if they were discovered, so it's generally not going to happen. Consequently, the only rumors running around are the "I heard it from my uncle's cousin's brother-in-law" type that are utterly unverifiable. With these, I would just as soon they posted them so I can decide for myself whether or not its bogus. I am at the mercy of the editors, though, for their truthfulness as to the source of the rumor. Unfortunately, this leaves the door open for unscrupulous site operators to totally fabricate stuff out of thin air, and then claim it is a "rumor." I think this is the charge against Meader, but I don't see any easy way to verify it. It's possible that the voice recognition demo really did happen (OS X does have pretty good voice recognition built in). We have no way of knowing for sure. So, caveat emptor.
The other option is to do like AI. It's is keeping its reputation for truthfulness squeaky clean by never posting any rumors at all.
[ 03-01-2002: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>
1. a generally circulated story, report, or statement without facts to confirm its truth
2. general talk or opinion of uncertain reliability
okay people - what is it about the above definition that gives people so much confusion?
Mac Sack Black, judging by the tone of your posts, I'd say you got burned by a rumor site... chill out guy
[quote] Meader, you're an
embarrassment; get off the web.
<hr></blockquote>
It's statements like this that just make me laugh - you don't want to go to his site? Don't friggin' go. It's not like someone's holding a gun to your head. It says *in the name of his site* that they are rumors - reread definition above. Expecting confirmed truth in a rumors site would mean it's no longer a rumors site now wouldn't it?
So RansomRiot gets his kicks out of duping people, good for him, I hope he was amused for a long long time. But don't, repeat *do not* immediately turn around and slag mosr for actually printing what you said. It's his prerogative, he pays for the domain and the hosting (and anyone that wants to give him money is allowed to do that too). We've all got free will here people. And most of us are smart enough to take the rumors with a grain of salt.
rr.
1. a generally circulated story, report, or statement without facts to confirm its truth
2. general talk or opinion of uncertain reliability
>okay people - what is it about the above definition that gives people so
much confusion?
It probably that `rumor' in the computing world seems to refer to number
2), but arguments like yours seek to use 1) to legitimise the repetition of
bullshit.
(uncertain != unverified)
>I'd say you got burned by a rumor site... chill out guy
I have not bought an apple product since 1997. Now who's getting burned?
I use a clone Mac dating from mid-96 and it's still running fine. Getting
burned? Maybe a hole in my pocket from the money I'm saving!
>It's statements like this that just make me laugh - you don't want to go
to his site?
I fail to see how "meader is an embarrassment" == "I don't want to see
meader's latest antics". It's like a car accident; one don't want to be
in it, but one slows down to look (who said this, I forget).
> Don't friggin' go. It's not like someone's holding a gun to
your head. It says *in the name of his site* that they are rumors -
reread definition above. Expecting con firmed truth in a rumors site
would mean it's no longer a rumors site now wouldn't it?
Is it too much to ask MOSR/yourdailymac/spymac to eliminate at least the
obvious BS?
>So RansomRiot gets his kicks out of duping people, good for him, I hope
he was amused for a long long time. But don't, repeat *do not*
immediately turn around and slag mosr for actually printing what you said.
Why shouldn't we? Rumor sites shouldn't be posting BS. Why shouldn't we
put them through their paces? (note: BS != "unverified rumors" -- as I
pointed out above rumors are difficult to confirm.)
The thing I find puzzeling is that you guys always pick on MOSR when they all are pretty much just as bad. Yes, this includes AI which hasn't posted anything new for almost a year. If you don't post anything then I guess you're safe from making anything up.
Now don't get me wrong I loved the rumor sites. It was so much fun to speculate on what Apple was going to do next. But, what happened is it's just gone to hell in a handbasket. I don't see this changing for quite a while ( if ever ). At least until Apple loses it's vendetta against rumour sites.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
a) The stuff they post comes from unverified sources?
b) The stuff they post often turns out to be untrue?
c) They don't like the proprietors?
d) They don't post stuff often enough?
e) ???? Something else?
Responses to each:
a) Suggest how you would like them to verify their sources and their credibility. Two independent sources? How do they know it's not you and your buddy using different accounts? How can they tell if someone is lying?
b) Rumors are just that. They may be true, probably aren't. The only way to be sure of the truth is to wait until the product is released to tell about it - but then it's not a rumor, it's news. If it bothers you that many of the rumors are false, stick with news sites and leave the rumor sites alone.
c) If you don't like the proprietor of the site, avoid it. Every time you visit MOSR, Ryan Meader gets advertising money (not much, but some). No visits = no money, and MOSR dies. It's called marketplace economics.
d) Considering the number of real, verifiable reports of upcoming Apple hardware that are available (which is nearly zero), if a site publishes only those, it ends up like AI - nice bulletin board, but not an actual rumors site anymore. So, if you want to see more good stuff on the rumor sites, go to work at Apple or Motorola or IBM. Then you can send in juicy tidbits of real info (which are still unverifiable) and the number of quality postings at the rumor sites will increase dramatically - at least until you get fired.
What I'm hearing, I think, is that you want lots of good hard info about upcoming Apple products and plans on a regular basis. Well, I want a Ferrari, too, and the odds of my getting one are about the same as Apple letting that kind of information out (remember Worker Bee?), so you'd best learn to deal with it. The scraps we see on the sites are all we're going to get.
If you don't like MOSR, don't go there.
If you don't believe MOSR, then don't believe it.
It's a free web. Let them do what they want, and they will reap the consequences of their actions. You know, just like the real world.
Now, let me ask: who hasn't sneaked a peek in a National Enquirer to see if Lisa Bonet's alien love child does have the head of Elvis?
One more analogy.
What if you thought: "Boy, the security in my 7-11 / Circle-K is really lax. Bet I could steal a bunch of stuff from it."
Should you try to verify this hypothesis?
With all due respect to <a href="http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/hil0bio-1"; target="_blank">Sir Edmund Hillary</a>, we don't have to climb every mountain just because it's there.