<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Never Dupe Your Readers	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers</link>
	<description>A running commentary of occasionally interesting things — from Mike Davidson.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 May 2016 06:34:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Seeking success via celebrity &#8211; Devin Reams		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-88091</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Seeking success via celebrity &#8211; Devin Reams]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:49:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-88091</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Mike Davidson has posted a great article in which he poses that celebrity bloggers and pundits are little more than know-it-alls who [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Mike Davidson has posted a great article in which he poses that celebrity bloggers and pundits are little more than know-it-alls who [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tech really is the new Hollywood…in all the worst ways &#8211; Devin Reams		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-88090</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tech really is the new Hollywood…in all the worst ways &#8211; Devin Reams]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-88090</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Mike Davidson elegantly put [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Mike Davidson elegantly put [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: News of Note &#8212; Content is King Edition &#171; WISPA		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-47578</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[News of Note &#8212; Content is King Edition &#171; WISPA]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:02:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-47578</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Jason Calcanis showed how not to blog: see Never Dupe Your Readers. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Jason Calcanis showed how not to blog: see Never Dupe Your Readers. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Aaron		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46745</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aaron]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 02:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46745</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Something about this line &quot;The fact that it occurred only on Twitter and was a lot more believable than it could have been if it were really just an altruistic joke&quot; reminded me of an article I read (http://bit.ly/aL7Qf1), which basically made the point that for some reason info on Twitter is more believable, especially if it comes from a source that has built up credibility. 

My guess is the majority of Calcanis&#039; readers will still find him credible, but the tech press might pause next time.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Something about this line &#8220;The fact that it occurred only on Twitter and was a lot more believable than it could have been if it were really just an altruistic joke&#8221; reminded me of an article I read (<a href="http://bit.ly/aL7Qf1" rel="nofollow ugc">http://bit.ly/aL7Qf1</a>), which basically made the point that for some reason info on Twitter is more believable, especially if it comes from a source that has built up credibility. </p>
<p>My guess is the majority of Calcanis&#8217; readers will still find him credible, but the tech press might pause next time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Never Dupe Your Readers — Brian Gilham		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46677</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Never Dupe Your Readers — Brian Gilham]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:21:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46677</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Davidson nails it in a recent article discussing Jason Calacanis&#8217;s iPad lies: If you want to be influential, lead by doing, not by [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Davidson nails it in a recent article discussing Jason Calacanis&#8217;s iPad lies: If you want to be influential, lead by doing, not by [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike D.		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46512</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike D.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46512</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Keith: Yep, your last paragraph sums it up well. In your case, I agree, it was an altruistic attempt to illustration something, and it just wasn&#039;t well thought out. There was really no ulterior motive and that&#039;s why it&#039;s easier forgiven. With Jason, however, it&#039;s clear that it&#039;s just one more tool in an arsenal of weapons designed to get attention.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith: Yep, your last paragraph sums it up well. In your case, I agree, it was an altruistic attempt to illustration something, and it just wasn&#8217;t well thought out. There was really no ulterior motive and that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s easier forgiven. With Jason, however, it&#8217;s clear that it&#8217;s just one more tool in an arsenal of weapons designed to get attention.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Keith		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46435</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Keith]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:26:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46435</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I know from experience (being one of the designers in your example) that any kind of trickery played towards readers is a very risky business.  Our stunt wasn&#039;t meant to dupe anyone, we honestly thought it was constructed in such a way that it was clear we weren&#039;t serious and in a way that proved a point. 

Yet, I&#039;ll admit we didn&#039;t really think it through and because of that there were quite a few folks who were upset and concerned about the situation and we both felt really bad once that sunk in.

I do want to make two things clear.  

We didn&#039;t intend to &quot;purposely dupe&quot; anyone. The intention was not to have people believing it was a real fight, it was more to lampoon and make light of some quick &quot;copycat&quot; finger-pointing that had been going on.  I can see how that might have been assumed, but going in we honestly thought it was clear it was a joke.

As well, it was clarified almost immediately, like within hours, in the original posts as well as via IM to individuals and in comments on other blogs. There was no Twitter for real-time clarification, and we did the best we could. I know I personally didn&#039;t really understand why people were upset at first, and did a fair amount of arguing about that, but we clarified that it was a joke right away.

Still, regardless of the fallout, it wasn&#039;t a smart thing to do and all I can say in my defense is that I was really surprised at the reaction and had I known people would be genuinely upset I wouldn&#039;t have been a part of it. Of course I didn&#039;t want to upset anyone and, at the same time, the point of the whole thing was completely missed.

We are certainly guilty of not thinking it through and not considering the reactions of our readers, but implying that we intended to trick or upset people isn&#039;t accurate.

Sometimes we can&#039;t know the influence we&#039;ll have or how people will react.  We often tend to look at these things through our own lenses and group others according to that.  I see something like this and think, &quot;meh, wouldn&#039;t bother me much.&quot;  But that&#039;s me and when you&#039;ve got an audience you need to think about how others might react. And trust me, ever since I&#039;ve taken that into consideration with everything I write.

To me, that&#039;s the key here. The people who were upset were upset because they felt their trust had been betrayed. That wasn&#039;t the intention, but it doesn&#039;t matter. Like you say, no one likes to be duped. If you think you&#039;re even slightly misleading you might want to think twice.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know from experience (being one of the designers in your example) that any kind of trickery played towards readers is a very risky business.  Our stunt wasn&#8217;t meant to dupe anyone, we honestly thought it was constructed in such a way that it was clear we weren&#8217;t serious and in a way that proved a point. </p>
<p>Yet, I&#8217;ll admit we didn&#8217;t really think it through and because of that there were quite a few folks who were upset and concerned about the situation and we both felt really bad once that sunk in.</p>
<p>I do want to make two things clear.  </p>
<p>We didn&#8217;t intend to &#8220;purposely dupe&#8221; anyone. The intention was not to have people believing it was a real fight, it was more to lampoon and make light of some quick &#8220;copycat&#8221; finger-pointing that had been going on.  I can see how that might have been assumed, but going in we honestly thought it was clear it was a joke.</p>
<p>As well, it was clarified almost immediately, like within hours, in the original posts as well as via IM to individuals and in comments on other blogs. There was no Twitter for real-time clarification, and we did the best we could. I know I personally didn&#8217;t really understand why people were upset at first, and did a fair amount of arguing about that, but we clarified that it was a joke right away.</p>
<p>Still, regardless of the fallout, it wasn&#8217;t a smart thing to do and all I can say in my defense is that I was really surprised at the reaction and had I known people would be genuinely upset I wouldn&#8217;t have been a part of it. Of course I didn&#8217;t want to upset anyone and, at the same time, the point of the whole thing was completely missed.</p>
<p>We are certainly guilty of not thinking it through and not considering the reactions of our readers, but implying that we intended to trick or upset people isn&#8217;t accurate.</p>
<p>Sometimes we can&#8217;t know the influence we&#8217;ll have or how people will react.  We often tend to look at these things through our own lenses and group others according to that.  I see something like this and think, &#8220;meh, wouldn&#8217;t bother me much.&#8221;  But that&#8217;s me and when you&#8217;ve got an audience you need to think about how others might react. And trust me, ever since I&#8217;ve taken that into consideration with everything I write.</p>
<p>To me, that&#8217;s the key here. The people who were upset were upset because they felt their trust had been betrayed. That wasn&#8217;t the intention, but it doesn&#8217;t matter. Like you say, no one likes to be duped. If you think you&#8217;re even slightly misleading you might want to think twice.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jeff Croft		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46238</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Croft]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 07:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46238</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m late on this, and I never really had much of an opinion on Jason or his little ruse before tonight (I&#039;m also not a follower, but am familiar with his work), but after reading his comments in this thread, I can really think of no other appropriate word than &quot;douchebag.&quot;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m late on this, and I never really had much of an opinion on Jason or his little ruse before tonight (I&#8217;m also not a follower, but am familiar with his work), but after reading his comments in this thread, I can really think of no other appropriate word than &#8220;douchebag.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Val		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46185</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Val]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:24:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46185</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Just one problem Jason: the device you described, 7-10 lbs, $2000? &quot;There is no way it could be designed for $499 in a 1.5 pound package.&quot; But u didn&#039;t know it was $499 and 1.5 lbs. What kind of assbackyard reasoning is that?  To argue after the fact using information you learned later that your premised device couldn&#039;t possibly fit is the most retarded argumentation I&#039;ve seen. Wow. Schmendrick.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just one problem Jason: the device you described, 7-10 lbs, $2000? &#8220;There is no way it could be designed for $499 in a 1.5 pound package.&#8221; But u didn&#8217;t know it was $499 and 1.5 lbs. What kind of assbackyard reasoning is that?  To argue after the fact using information you learned later that your premised device couldn&#8217;t possibly fit is the most retarded argumentation I&#8217;ve seen. Wow. Schmendrick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Anonymous		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46177</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Anonymous]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 00:50:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46177</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#062;Oh and don’t tell them about the special “brain wave” controller either. 
Those actually exist, moron.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;Oh and don’t tell them about the special “brain wave” controller either.<br />
Those actually exist, moron.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: foobar		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46145</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foobar]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46145</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A cursory glance at his twitter page shows over half his users don&#039;t have an avatar, which suggests they&#039;re fake accounts. Don&#039;t get worked up over his supposed 90K followers - they aren&#039;t all real.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A cursory glance at his twitter page shows over half his users don&#8217;t have an avatar, which suggests they&#8217;re fake accounts. Don&#8217;t get worked up over his supposed 90K followers &#8211; they aren&#8217;t all real.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Considering		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46110</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Considering]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46110</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Playing a joke/prank on your readers -- whoever they are -- can be risky, and I (think) Jason screwed up on this one. But I don&#039;t believe we should throw the parody and social commentary baby out with the badly-implemented (in this case) bath water.

In my opinion Jason made two big mistakes:

1) He mistook the nearly context-free Twitter for blogging. We&#039;re meant to read it as a stream... it flows by during the time we&#039;re reading it and even THEN we rarely see everything. Anyone following more than a couple dozen people is extremely unlikely to read everything tweeted by those they follow. And it&#039;s ludicrously unlikely when the context here is &quot;tech bloggers talking about iPad at that time&quot;. 

2) His defense, echoed by many others,is that only idiots (or drunk-on-koolaid types, etc.) would have been duped, so-- if your &quot;mistake&quot; was only a mistake to STUPID people, it doesn&#039;t actually count as a mistake, right? 

Anyone who lists, say, three of the more outrageous tweets Jason made as evidence for the stupidity of readers is, frankly, displaying a lack of understanding of Twitter, and viewing it through a naive/newbie &quot;it&#039;s like a blog, except with smaller posts&quot; lens.

I actually thought his tweets were fascinating and I was enjoying it as a puzzle/mystery to figure out if he was telling the truth, and wondering when or if you&#039;d finally see the thing that was CLEARLY too outrageous. And had it been a blog or even series of blog posts, I think far more people would have enjoyed it as well.

But to craft a joke -- via Twitter -- that depended ENTIRELY on readers seeing ALL of his tweets in order to &quot;get&quot; the joke, --I believe he is normally much smarter than that. He just made a mistake and now wants to blame the readers who seem to &quot;get&quot; the nature of Twitter far more than Jason does.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Playing a joke/prank on your readers &#8212; whoever they are &#8212; can be risky, and I (think) Jason screwed up on this one. But I don&#8217;t believe we should throw the parody and social commentary baby out with the badly-implemented (in this case) bath water.</p>
<p>In my opinion Jason made two big mistakes:</p>
<p>1) He mistook the nearly context-free Twitter for blogging. We&#8217;re meant to read it as a stream&#8230; it flows by during the time we&#8217;re reading it and even THEN we rarely see everything. Anyone following more than a couple dozen people is extremely unlikely to read everything tweeted by those they follow. And it&#8217;s ludicrously unlikely when the context here is &#8220;tech bloggers talking about iPad at that time&#8221;. </p>
<p>2) His defense, echoed by many others,is that only idiots (or drunk-on-koolaid types, etc.) would have been duped, so&#8211; if your &#8220;mistake&#8221; was only a mistake to STUPID people, it doesn&#8217;t actually count as a mistake, right? </p>
<p>Anyone who lists, say, three of the more outrageous tweets Jason made as evidence for the stupidity of readers is, frankly, displaying a lack of understanding of Twitter, and viewing it through a naive/newbie &#8220;it&#8217;s like a blog, except with smaller posts&#8221; lens.</p>
<p>I actually thought his tweets were fascinating and I was enjoying it as a puzzle/mystery to figure out if he was telling the truth, and wondering when or if you&#8217;d finally see the thing that was CLEARLY too outrageous. And had it been a blog or even series of blog posts, I think far more people would have enjoyed it as well.</p>
<p>But to craft a joke &#8212; via Twitter &#8212; that depended ENTIRELY on readers seeing ALL of his tweets in order to &#8220;get&#8221; the joke, &#8211;I believe he is normally much smarter than that. He just made a mistake and now wants to blame the readers who seem to &#8220;get&#8221; the nature of Twitter far more than Jason does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Cam		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46106</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cam]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:48:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46106</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Jason uses the price point, and weight of the iPad as reasons the specs he tweeted should not have been believed:

&quot;There is no way it could be designed for $499 in a 1.5 pound package!!!&quot; 

The problem with that is the price of $499, nor the weight of 1.5 lbs, had been announced at the time of the tweets.

Just sayin...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason uses the price point, and weight of the iPad as reasons the specs he tweeted should not have been believed:</p>
<p>&#8220;There is no way it could be designed for $499 in a 1.5 pound package!!!&#8221; </p>
<p>The problem with that is the price of $499, nor the weight of 1.5 lbs, had been announced at the time of the tweets.</p>
<p>Just sayin&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Mindflayer		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46102</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mindflayer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:33:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46102</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t listen to TWiT when Jason Calacanis is on the show. Same with Ryan Block. Neither of them add anything of any real substance - just ego and flash. I disregarded the re-tweets of the &quot;leaks&quot; as attention seeking. 

That all said, the hype about the ? iPad was generated by the same people that bought this shit as reality. Apple never released information and people just went crazy. As a realist and cynic, I expected something less than desirable (iPod HiFI?) and was rewarded with something pretty slick.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t listen to TWiT when Jason Calacanis is on the show. Same with Ryan Block. Neither of them add anything of any real substance &#8211; just ego and flash. I disregarded the re-tweets of the &#8220;leaks&#8221; as attention seeking. </p>
<p>That all said, the hype about the ? iPad was generated by the same people that bought this shit as reality. Apple never released information and people just went crazy. As a realist and cynic, I expected something less than desirable (iPod HiFI?) and was rewarded with something pretty slick.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Paul Boutin		</title>
		<link>https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2010/01/never-dupe-your-readers#comment-46091</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Boutin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://mikeindustries.com/blog/?p=4034#comment-46091</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve stopped following JC about 6 months ago for the exact reasons you talk about. Ego, ego and ego. It gets boring real fast.

I friend of mine I follow fell for the prank which I started reading. After tweet 2 I knew it was a fake, it also confirmed why I stopped following JC. Let&#039;s all stop talking about him now...

By the way, he must have called in his troups in this comments thread... damn..]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve stopped following JC about 6 months ago for the exact reasons you talk about. Ego, ego and ego. It gets boring real fast.</p>
<p>I friend of mine I follow fell for the prank which I started reading. After tweet 2 I knew it was a fake, it also confirmed why I stopped following JC. Let&#8217;s all stop talking about him now&#8230;</p>
<p>By the way, he must have called in his troups in this comments thread&#8230; damn..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
