Pulling others down to get to the top

Is it only me that find stuff like this a bit distasteful? - Every time I read somthing this girl writes she always seems to be pulling everyone down around her in an attempt to position herself.

Site architecture has been poorly addressed by search engine marketers (SEMs). Many of them have limited knowledge about information architecture and site usability. Some only specialize in search advertising, focusing on the media buy and the bidding process. Many SEO (define) firms specialize in cloaking (define). Nowhere in this skill set is information architecture. That's a shame.

and full of the most dubious of "facts"

Through usability tests and focus groups, I sometimes find visitors show a marked preference for multimedia effects and pull-down menus. In fact, visitors in the computer/software industries actually use pull-down menus, even though usability experts might not recommend them.

Just my little rant for a monday morning....


It's Called Content Free

I call it "ambiguous posturing". Use of words like, "some, many, they, them" etc, should make your alarm bells go off. The use of purposely vague statements is designed to make it difficult for the reader to disagree with the writer.

Many of them have limited knowledge... Some only specialize in...

Simple technique to make the writer seem more informed. Unfortunately, it's a poor technique if the reader is critical. It's easy to use vague terms and their use means the writer can't be forced to present hard facts, or forced to defend their position if presented with hard facts. After all, "some politicians are witty and honest, some of them may have sex with farm animals and many of them can't be trusted to tell the truth".

The technique you rightfully identified Nick, is used to cast aspersions. Although in this instance, to me, the article merely reads as if the author wanted to write an article but was a bit short on hard facts, hence the editorial. In those two paragraphs, every important statement is qualified except for the one that begins with, "in fact", which we all know is used to bolster a weak point. ;)

What is this topic on again?

What is this topic on again?

Make it a "person"...

...that is both politically correct AND it is obvious you're not talking about some guy (else you'd say "this guy" - right?). "Person" can work both ways ;) Just have your excuse ready...

Girl is fine

what're the alternatives? 'woman' sounds really snotty, 'lady' is too open to bad jokes and 'chick' is probably offensive in all countries ;)

even just making us on of the 'guys' is liable, on the wrong day, to attract a sharp slap.

nothing wrong with girl...

>Generally here it can be somewhat derogatory to call a woman a "girl."

I actually get chewed out for using ma'am and whatnot. Girl has never got me in trouble...then again I am not a social butterfly, and I think I am a year or two younger ;)

Maybe it is an American/Engli

Maybe it is an American/English thing. Generally here it can be somewhat derogatory to call a woman a "girl." (Least it was in my day, maybe it's back in style...I'm pretty old you know! ;)

This girl, Nick?

Would you have said "this boy" if it was written by a guy?

Where's she pulling anyone else down?

I don't always agree with everything Shari writes, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with this article. I have to assume that she's actualy done the usability/focus group tests that she mentions, which is where she's getting her info.

>>Would you have said "this b

>>Would you have said "this boy" if it was written by a guy?

Sure i would... why not? Maybe it's an american/english thing but im not sure why you'd even ask?

I've just noticed a trend in her writings, and im not keen on the tone...