This newsgroup is not a help desk
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: complete page rewriting
Next: td inner border
From: Matt Kruse on 22 Jul 2010 15:23 On Jul 22, 6:44 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for the blatant advertisement You should be. It's pretty pathetic. Even for you. A fixed-cost help desk that answers questions whose answers can be surely found for free... as long as you ask smart questions... and only up to three a day... but of course not every day. Are you serious?! It's hard to take seriously your criticisms of libraries (which are generalized enough to solve most peoples' problems so they can avoid asking complex browser scripting questions to begin with) when you blatantly advertise a for-profit alternative. You'd be better-off spamming the support forums of those libraries whose business you have been trying to take for years. But then, that might make you look even more pathetic. Matt Kruse
From: David Mark on 22 Jul 2010 16:02 On Jul 22, 3:23 pm, Matt Kruse <m...(a)thekrusefamily.com> wrote: > On Jul 22, 6:44 am, David Mark <dmark.cins...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Sorry for the blatant advertisement > > You should be. Not really, it's a pretty short list of people in here for whom the "insurance" would be a bad gamble. > It's pretty pathetic. Even for you. LOL. You are definitely not on the list. How many times have I bailed you out? > > A fixed-cost help desk that answers questions whose answers can be > surely found for free... as long as you ask smart questions... Did you read my post at all? And are you really so naive to think that anyone can do what I do? How many people with my experience can you count on to answer questions in this group? Other than Richard Cornford, I defy you to name *one*. > and > only up to three a day... but of course not every day. Are you > serious?! Yes, definitely. The business model is not of my conception, but has worked well for me so far. The idea is that you can't ask dozens of questions a month, but (in a pinch) can ask up to three in a single day. It's insurance. If you abuse it, your rates go up. > > It's hard to take seriously your criticisms of libraries (which are > generalized enough to solve most peoples' problems so they can avoid > asking complex browser scripting questions to begin with) when you > blatantly advertise a for-profit alternative. That doesn't follow at all. In fact, it follows that after *years* of helping people figure out their self-imposed library-related problems, I have come to the conclusion that such people will not give up on their chosen libraries and are therefore in need of a full-time service. I'm sure you get that (a child would), but you want to tack on a disingenuous piece of baloney. Are you really so concerned that people might get the help they need? And none of my current clients are library users anyway. They are completely competent developers who realize that they don't have time to figure out everything on their own. > > You'd be better-off spamming the support forums of those libraries > whose business you have been trying to take for years. How does "don't use a GP library (including mine)" which had been my mantra for the years you have been following me represent "trying to take" anything? And I mention it here because this where the queries about a book originated and recent posts have demonstrated quite clearly that, after all of these years, people are still looking for a real JS help desk. > But then, that > might make you look even more pathetic. > As pathetic as a known jQuery apologist (and virtual basket-case on his worst days) wasting time in a thread that is none of his concern? I mean, I know you are my biggest fan and all, but why don't you go play around in the jQuery forums. That's your place. You'd do well to admit defeat on this whole browser scripting thing and cough up the necessary premiums (and you know it). ;)
From: SteveYoungTbird on 22 Jul 2010 16:59 On 07/22/2010 01:44 PM, David Mark wrote: > Sorry for the blatant advertisement, but having been recently exhorted > to share my knowledge and experience in book form, I thought I should > remind readers that books are a relatively limited (and static) > medium. Similar to the cycle of life this is the cycle of DM. As I wrote here http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/f2e352c258177b52/653e68041369c952?q=david+mark#653e68041369c952 It's the usual garbage: "All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one" "All JavaScript books are rubbish. I'll write a really good one" "Dojo is the best JavaScript library. I'll make it really good" Nothing came of any of this so now we're back at: "All JavaScript libraries are rubbish, I'll write a really good one" It'll be the book next. Except instead of the book we get this 'cos its better. > Despite virtually zero advertising so far, I'm still disappointed in the number of sign-ups. This statement is priceless. You are disappointed that people are not signing up despite the fact that you are not advertising? > And, of course, there's the > almost daily occurrence of newcomers to this group getting frustrated > by the "staffers" discussions of their present problems. This has been less of a problem over the last few weeks but unfortunately you're back. > > *Conditions apply regarding the scope and depth of questions that may > be asked Of course! Steve.
From: Stefan Weiss on 22 Jul 2010 17:10 On 22/07/10 22:02, David Mark wrote: > The business model is not of my conception, but has > worked well for me so far. The idea is that you can't ask dozens of > questions a month, but (in a pinch) can ask up to three in a single > day. It's insurance. If you abuse it, your rates go up. So what are the rates for your insurance? There's no information about this service on your website. I hope I don't need to have an existing account to get an answer to this question ;-) You should also be a little more explicit about what exactly you're offering. Authorities usually frown on the type of businessmen who show up uninvited, often in dark suits, and try to convince shop owners that it would be wise to buy some "insurance"... -- stefan
From: S.T. on 22 Jul 2010 17:23
On 7/22/2010 1:59 PM, SteveYoungTbird wrote: >> Despite virtually zero advertising so far, I'm still disappointed in >> the number of sign-ups. > > This statement is priceless. You are disappointed that people are not > signing up despite the fact that you are not advertising? I most enjoyed how the rates go up in the event "your questions require more than a minute effort to answer". That's classic. |