Folks: InfoWorld's editorial mission and focus is not a secret. We cover PC, networking, and internet products and technologies for the men and women who buy hardware, software, networking, and internet gear for their companies. We try to advocate for these readers. And, we try to listen to their issues and reflect them back to sofware, hardware, and networking manufacturers. This is our focus. We succeed by maintaining our focus and executing well....And that's the sad part about this entire debacle: IW was doing a damn fine job of achieving the above until they betrayed the trust of the readership with not one, but two attempts to foist bogus Reader's Survey results on us. The fact that Sandy Reed and the IW editorial staff are so concerned with not backing down and admitting their mistakes for the sake of their own egos does naught but pour salt into the wounds in ten-pound bag amounts. In other words, the only focus being maintained is on being pigheaded.
The fact that Bill Gates and Michael Dell and Conrad and Up_Yours read InfoWorld is an honor. But, we are not about to start serving Bill Gates's personal reading requirements...[SNIP!]...You've totally missed the point here. Nobody's asking you to tow someone's company line here! All we've been asking for IW to do with this poll is to present the facts AS THEY TRULY ARE, USING VALID SCIENTIFIC METHODS! For some God-only-knows-and -will-probably-damn-you-for-it-when-this-is-all-said-and-done reason, Sandy Reed and the IW editorial staff are all convinced that unless the poll results a) supports whoever's the biggest advertiser, and/or b) proves whatever dogma that IW is currently preaching, then the poll is bogus and should be discarded. That belief is not only an insult to the readership, but an insult to the IW staffers unto themselves. One that their egos obviously won't allow them to comprehend, much less acknowledge.
Besides, Rachel, here's a bit of logic for you: If you're not trying to "serve Bill Gates' personal reading requirements", then why go out of your way to exclude OS/2 the way you did? Sounds to me someone's been blacking one's pots of late...
If the value of our product reviews, columns and news are diminished by the fact that readers outside of our core audience did not vote for the Product of the Year, I'm sorry. But, I still maintain that our methodology was appropriate given our mission....Yes, especially if your mission is one that's not in the best interests of your readership, and only serves as an offensive slap in the face to those of us who've read and respected IW all these years.
If anyone here needs some serious reality adjustments, it's the IW editorial staff, obviously...
For questions or comments, email the Forums Editor