| |||||||||||||
Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQLEngine Yard transitions to PostgreSQLPosted Sep 14, 2012 13:11 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL by paulj Parent article: Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL There were a lot of internal discussions about this piece, and some changes were made in the process. We believed there was enough useful information here to make it worth publishing. Given the number of subscriber links that have been sent, at least a few others seem to agree. Let me clarify one thing, though: we did not "raise revenue" by running this article. Indeed, we paid for it. There's no shortage of companies wanting to "contribute" articles they themselves have written; we do not have any interest in running those.
(Log in to post comments)
Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL Posted Sep 14, 2012 13:13 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
If they have useful content and you mark it differently, it might be a good source of additional revenue without affecting the quality of LWN.
Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL Posted Sep 14, 2012 13:22 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
To be clear: There definitely is useful information in this piece, and it was worth publishing. At the same time, I imagine Engine Yard are quite happy with it too.
Also, I didn't mean to imply this might have been a paid article. It clearly contains balancing information.
That said, there's nothing wrong with paid articles, IFF they go through the usual editorial process (with an exception made perhaps for needs for balance) and are marked as such. If LWN felt this was a way to raise revenue, there would be no shame at all in it. This subscriber, at least, would be quite happy with them, as long as the main text was a click-through to a separate page and LWN feed and weekly pages were restricted to an easily-scrolled-past abstract.
Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL Posted Sep 14, 2012 13:27 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
Oh, placed articles that are clearly marked, and go through something resembling the usual editorial process, are clearly preferable to the kind of recooking-press-releases journalism which lesser outlets than LWN often swamp their sites with. ;)
Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL Posted Sep 14, 2012 14:41 UTC (Fri) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link]
> There's no shortage of companies wanting to "contribute" articles they themselves have written; we do not have any interest in running those.
Good. And that is an ideal which ensures the sort of quality you consistently achieve, to a unique level.
I agree that the tone of the article isn't great. I think the articles you run that are based largely on interviews, but aren't just "question" "pr speak answer" are much more interesting. Granted I am not a database person, but I found this far less interesting an article than the average here. And it was annoying to read, thanks to the tone (others who read a lot from less reputable places probably don't worry about that so much; for me, it isn't something I expect from lwn.)
Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL Posted Sep 15, 2012 8:57 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
I read the introductory part explaining rails and PostgreSQL and that was real good. Yes, it's written by a PostgreSQL developer - which is both a blessing and a curse. It means it is technically correct and thought out and complete; it is also written from a particular point of view. But I doubt you have a problem with that, do you?
Then the interview part - yes, the answers are VERY marketingy. The dude who answered the questions either is a marketeer, had marketing experience or was helped by a marketing person. And obviously didn't realize that is absolutely the wrong tone for LWN.
But you can edit what someone answers to your questions only so much - and I wouldn't blame LWN for publishing it like this. All in all - for me, knowing not too much about Rails and database stuff, it was a good read. Next time, tell the interviewee that this is for LWN - not a marketing site and it'll be perfect.
|
|||||||||||||