User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Posted Sep 14, 2012 8:18 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)
Parent article: Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Hm, this reads like an Engine Yard ad.


(Log in to post comments)

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Posted Sep 14, 2012 8:29 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Definitely a puff piece, and yes, not far from something that should have "this is an advertisement" in small letters at the top.

I actually wouldn't have a major problem with LWN raising revenue that way. Such articles can sometimes be interesting (certainly more interesting than normal ads). It seems to be something that other reputable magazines sometimes do (e.g. New Scientist).

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Posted Sep 14, 2012 11:47 UTC (Fri) by zuki (subscriber, #41808) [Link]

Hmm, the first part of the article apparently describes how Engine Yard chose presumably inferior technology, since they are switching, and is now catching up. The second part is an _interview_ with a guy from the company, so it's pretty obvious that he's providing their viewpoint. The article talks too much about the competition and reversed technological choices to be a puff piece.

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Posted Sep 14, 2012 13:11 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

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.

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 (guest, #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.

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Posted Sep 14, 2012 19:43 UTC (Fri) by jberkus (subscriber, #55561) [Link]

In general, I wrote this article in order to synthesize some news from the last month which had come in about migrations from MySQL to PostgreSQL in the web developer world. EngineYard was featured because (a) it's recent news and (b) EngineYard had, historically, been a very adamant MySQL-only shop. I expected it to be generally interesting, in the same way that it would be if Yahoo migrated from FreeBSD to Linux.

To the extent that I failed to convey that, my apologies. This is my first time writing this kind of a piece, and it's a bit of an experiment for LWN as well. We'll take the criticism into account in adjusting the next article I do which contains an interview. This article went through 5 drafts, BTW.

To be completely clear: I wrote this article as a paid writer for LWN, and did so because I believed that it exemplified changes in the open source database world which would be interesting to readers, and the LWN editors thought that it would be as well.

Oh, and Ines is a woman.

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Posted Sep 15, 2012 8:59 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]

Let me, instead of repeating myself, just link to my reply:
https://lwn.net/Articles/516453/

In short, I think it was fine, just tell the interviewee next time that too much marketing speak is not so much appreciated on this site. Otherwise, it was interesting and complete. Keep writing ;-)

Engine Yard transitions to PostgreSQL

Posted Oct 5, 2012 9:55 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link]

Maybe LWN could offer interviewed people some www-page where they can paste their reply text and it will give back a "marketing smell" index, with a scale from "geekspeak" to "vomit inducing PR speak"?

That rating page could use e.g. Bayesian spam filtering to categorize the answers. There could be another page where LWN subscribers could feed these filters with content that triggers their bullshit alarms.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds