Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Every day is repost day/My Homsar

Because I have either a low self esteem and am continually looking for acceptance, or I have a big ego and want it to be stroked, I like to google around and see where my software is mentioned on the web. I didn't do it at all before Ghacks wrote about PEM, which brought a flood of people to FreewareWire. (Before, I was getting 1, maybe 2 people a day. Then I got 100. Not too impressive...except it was literally overnight.)

But anyway, it's actually really fun, to see just what people say about your program. But what kind of annoys me is how many times I saw Ghacks' post. I just don't understand sites that never post original content, they just take the feed of a popular site, like Ghacks, turn it around, and republish it. If people wanted to read that, why not just go to the original site (like Ghacks)? It just seems lazy, to me.

The only other reason that that pisses me off so much is that Ghacks....well.....how do I put this diplomatically? I really appreciate the fact that they've featured some of my programs, I do. But their review process is really kind of sloppy. They've made mistakes in both of the reviews that they've posted about my software.

ERROR #1: P.E.M.
If you read any post from FreewareWire, you notice that I put the software name, then a (supposed-to-be) witty comment of sorts after a colon. For PEM, I thought up another thing the acronym could stand for, and on the spot, typed "Pure Enigmatic Magic". Well, Ghacks, in their incredible wisdom, took this and ran with it, saying, "The creation of PEM, Pure Enigmatic Magic..." At first, I understood the confusion. But then I went back to the blogpost about PEM, and say that I even said in the second sentence, "PEM stands for Portable Extension Manager." After Ghacks, I noticed that alot of other sites picked up PEM, and alot of them repeated the mistake, which is when I really began to get pissed off. I told the creator of Ghacks the mistake, but as you can see, no change. I went back to the blogpost and edited the title to the real meaning, but Ghacks remains the same.

As I was searching, I was surprised to find that Ghacks had again picked one of my programs to write about, this time, being Skeys. I actually very muchly enjoyed the review, except the fact that they left out a core piece of usability: nicknaming. Halfway through the review, I read (to my horror) "Key identification is problematic as all keys are using cryptic identifiers." Again, they miss something that I blatantly put in the blog post. An entire paragraph, actually. Last sentence: "So when you find which button is for the key you want to use, right click it, and you assign that key its "Nickname", which will make it 100 times easier to identify." How can that be mistaken? It was right after the section about Autocheck, which he even mentioned in the post.

Overall, I am dissapointed because it seems the reviewer only does shoddy work. He obviously skimmed my post on PEM, and I doubt he even downloaded it, since it freakin says "Portable Extension Manager" in the title bar. Then for Skeys, he again skimmed through the post, missing an entire paragraph, this time not just mistaking a name, but actually damaging the image of my program, and that, to me, is unacceptable. I worked very hard to put in all those features, and Nicknaming is no different. But saying that something is "problematic" and "cryptic" is not a good way to suggest my program, it's a good way to scare people away.

I suppose I shouldn't complain. I guess I'd rather have a post with something incorrect/misleading about my freeware rather than no post at all.


Psst! - If you want to see where else my apps are mentioned on the interwebz, check here.

No comments:

Post a Comment