Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Did you mistake NASA Watch for an information source? Keith complains when he's excluded from NASA stuff, but excluding the public (including his readers) is another matter.

"Teasing" is a great way to ensure people keep coming back to the site, which maximizes the chances of their clicking on the links to buy protein powders, hair restoration, and other items offered for sale on NASA Watch.

Posted by at February 14, 2005 03:51 PM

I am not "teasing" people Rand. I posted exactly what I know to be true and as much as I know at this time. If I knew more (i.e. exactly when, what, where, who) I'd post that.

Curiously some people have accused me of withholding information because I have not been posting much.The fact that I had nothing to post is immaterial, it would seem.

You can spare yourself this annoyance by simply ignoring NASA Watch Rand.

I find it rather odd that a libertarian pro-commerce type such as yourself would have a problem with a commercial news source generating income from advertsing. You never complained about all the advertising that Fox put on the web pages you used to write for them.

Meanwhile you ask people to give you money on this site.

Yawn, what a hypocrite you are.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 14, 2005 05:43 PM

I am not "teasing" people Rand. I posted exactly what I know to be true and as much as I know at this time. If I knew more (i.e. exactly when, what, where, who) I'd post that.

Then I have to ask, what's the point in posting at all, if you know nothing except that an announcement will be "real soon." How does that benefit your readership?

What makes you think I have a problem with advertising, or generating revenue? Can you cite something that I wrote to support this strange accusation?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 14, 2005 05:46 PM

Then I have to ask, what's the point in posting at all, if you know nothing except that an announcement will be "real soon." How does that benefit your readership?

DUH Because that is the "news" I am reporting. If I knew more, I'd write it. I don't, so I didn't.

No one is forcing you to read NASA Watch, Rand. And if I am doing my readers a disservice they will find another place to get news and I will turn my attention to something else. You are the only one to complain among the tens of thousands of people who visited today.

As for commerce, read your own words, Rand -

It would seem that you do not approve of a website that (after 8 years of being devoid of any advertising) now seeks to cover some of its operating expense the good old fashion capitalistic way. Or is it that you do not approve of my advertisers and that asking people for money (as you do) is a preferable way to do things?

Again, you are such a hypocrite, Rand.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 14, 2005 05:57 PM

Keith,

I don't think the first anonymous reply to this thread is Rand's so I don't think he is the one casting aspersions on your ad content at all.

Proabally one of our 'friends' from over at the space-frontier board if I had to wager.

Posted by Mike Puckett at February 14, 2005 05:58 PM

My error (assuming Rand wrote the first post). I scrolled fast and I thought I saw his name. Yet based on Rand's initial comment about "teasing", those aspects of my post still apply.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 14, 2005 06:08 PM

I did see the first post, Keith, but since I'm not in the habit of commenting anonymously on my own posts, I was wondering why you thought that it was me. And I still fail to see the news value of saying that an announcement in imminent without a hint as to who it is to your readers. All it does is beg the question, which is what I meant by "tease."

And I'm wondering why I am only allowed to read your web site if I'm not allowed to question things that you occasionally post on it...

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 14, 2005 06:36 PM

And I'm wondering why I am only allowed to read your web site if I'm not allowed to question things that you occasionally post on it...

Because that is the way I run it, Rand. Surprise, surprise. Its been that way for 9 years and you only decided to complain now?

If you don't like it: don't read it - or start your own ... oh wait, you already have.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 14, 2005 07:07 PM

Watch out Rand, Keith and others of his ilk have just about killed any usefulness at the Space-Frontier Return to the Moon board.

He's probably scoping out a new stomping ground before they close that board.

Posted by Observer at February 14, 2005 08:24 PM

Hi "Observer". Is that your first name or last name?

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 14, 2005 09:41 PM

This whole thing actually started about 10 or 11 days ago when Keith posted the first noninformation about the job.

I agree with Rand, though, that it smacks of gossip and local news teasers. ("Something in your medicine cabinet could kill you, we'll tell you what it is after this commercial break...")

While it's nice to know that there *might* be some news released *sometime soon*, if you're not actually breaking the story (just passing it on from news services), there's no real benefit from announcing that you might have an announcement some time in the next 30 days about something that people may or may not be interested in, while making it sound like you actually have the information already.

If you're actually breaking the story before anyone else, then teasers might be warranted. In this case, however, you have have no actual insight to offer, so where's the benefit from bothering with a teaser? Unless you're the kind of person that gets off on listening to other people complain about your lack of information...

Posted by John Breen III at February 15, 2005 10:09 AM

Yours are the only complaints I have received out of tens of thousands of visitors daily - and they only appear on *this* blog.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 15, 2005 10:13 AM

Possibly because there's no comment system on your blog?

I'm not complaining, I'm just offering insight as to why others may find teaser posts somewhat ludicrous, pointless, or annoying.

Posted by John Breen III at February 15, 2005 10:27 AM

It's ironic that Keith, who relies on anonymous sources for the bulk of his content, is now complaining about people not disclosing their real names.

Perhaps Keith would like to name that "one particular possible candidate" who was attacking"a former JSC Deputy Director" for exercising his Constitutional right to call the White House?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 15, 2005 10:32 AM

Sorry Ed, I don't do requests.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 15, 2005 10:43 AM

BREEN: Possibly because there's no comment system on your blog?

People certainly seem to find that email address on the left hand side - the one that has been there since I started - and indeed I get a steady stream of input - especially including things people don't like about NASA Watch.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 15, 2005 11:16 AM

Not to continue this drivel, but... "especially including things people don't like about NASA Watch."

"Yours are the only complaints I have received out of tens of thousands of visitors daily"

Huh???

I'm just sayin'...

Posted by John Breen III at February 15, 2005 11:21 AM

BREEN: "Yours are the only complaints I have received out of tens of thousands of visitors daily"

"Complaints" about the topic you and Rand are so obsessed with - only two and they are here on this blog NO ONE else has complained about teasing, or anything like that. Just you two - and the anonymous poster.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 15, 2005 11:39 AM

...about the topic you and Rand are so obsessed with...

I find this characterization more than a little bizarre, Keith. Can you point to any evidence of such an "obsession," other than my one-line post and single follow-up comment?

I really do have better things to do, as evidenced just by the many other posts on other subjects, much longer, on this blog, not to mention all the things I'm doing off line...

If anything, you would seem to be the one obsessed, since you keep coming back here to read and respond to comments.

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 15, 2005 11:45 AM

> Sorry Ed, I don't do requests.

Come one, Keith. You do requests for NASA officials whenever they want to leak information.

What you don't do is provide readers with verifiable facts -- who, what, when, where, names, dates, and sources -- rather than rumors and gossip from anonymous persons. As a former scientist, you must know what constitutes a verifiable fact and what doesn't.

It's funny that you got so mad recently about NASA holding meetings to which you weren't invited. I don't recall you and Frank expressing any outrage about secret meetings last year, when you were in on them. You can't claim you're protecting the public's right to now, because Frank admitted you and he withheld the information from the public for almost a year because public input might have "derailed the process." Even today, your book isn't backed up by verifiable sources.

Yet know you say, "If I knew more, I'd tell."

Posted by Edward Wright at February 15, 2005 11:48 AM

If you find NASA Watch so awful, why do you continue to read it, Ed? No self control?

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 15, 2005 12:05 PM

Keith, the more you rant, the more you open yourself up to observation, and right now...your emotional fly is open.

Posted by observer at February 15, 2005 01:21 PM

Keith,
I wonder how many hits were generated for NASAWatch by Rand's link to your article. Its not that we find NASAWatch awful. I, and hopefully others, are simply suggesting changes that would make it more compelling for us. As it stands I let others like Rand, Clark Lindsey, and Jeff Foust 'filter' NASAWatch for me. Unless they link to it I rarely visit. Allowing comments would be nice. Admittedly its a pain due to comment spam and the problems that Jeff has experienced on spacepolitics.com, but that doesn't negate enough of their value to refuse them outright.

One would think that since NASAWatch is a business enterprise that your goal would be increased readership, not limited readership to those who only see it your way.

And don't take this as some statement that I'm not completely respecting your right to run NASAWatch any way you see fit. All I'm doing is making suggestions that would attract me as a regular reader. The times I have read it on any kind of regular basis all I read were the comments you posted from your readers on a particular topic.

Even in Rand's case I find the comments often more interesting than the original post. No offense intended, Rand. ;-)

Posted by Michael Mealling at February 15, 2005 02:35 PM

Why is always about you, Keith?

You changed the subject pretty fast from NASA (which candidate you're flacking for and which former deputy director you're sliming) to Keith (how persecuted you are).

Why don't you tell us more about this nefarious conspiracy -- if it's nefarious as you've implied and your sources are as good as you say?

Posted by Edward Wright at February 15, 2005 05:01 PM

Once again Ed, I don't take requests.

Posted by Keith Cowing at February 15, 2005 05:31 PM

It seems that Keith is at it again. This time, NASA Watch is attacking "one reporter from a prominent space publication" who allegedly "whipped up this feeding frenzy by calling all over town."

Once again, Keith does not identify who he's impugning. The better to smear all of his competitors, I guess.

Posted by Edward Wright at February 15, 2005 08:51 PM

Keith, Rand,

Why the little spat here? Good grief. I read both of y'all's sites. Quit it.

If one doesn't like Keith's site, they don't have to read it.

If one doesn't like Rand's site, they don't have to read it.

I think Keith posted that "tease" because we've been waiting for a while now for a new administrator to be announced with nothing coming out. I kind of agree that it was a dumb thing to do, but then it's Keith's site; he can post what he wants.

Posted by Astrosmith at February 17, 2005 09:28 AM

Keith, Rand,

Why the little spat here? Good grief. I read both of y'all's sites. Quit it.

If one doesn't like Keith's site, they don't have to read it.

If one doesn't like Rand's site, they don't have to read it.

Posted by Astrosmith at February 17, 2005 09:28 AM

Why the little spat here? Good grief. I read both of y'all's sites. Quit it.

What "spat"? Quit what?

All I did was post a one-line post about a less-than-helpful post at NASA Watch (and send him traffic). I'm not trying to run Keith's site. He can put whatever he wants there, and he can run or not run comments there. I don't care, and I don't know how anything I've posted here constitutes a "spat."

Conversely, I can put what I want here, including critiques of and comments about things at NASA Watch. Isn't the web wonderful?

Posted by Rand Simberg at February 17, 2005 09:43 AM

Exactly, Rand. Your site rules, and Keith's site rules. I think he was being a little childish about this whole thing, not you.

As for me, no one has to pay attention to me, either... :-)

Posted by Astrosmith at February 17, 2005 02:29 PM

"I think he was being a little childish about this whole thing, not you."

Cowing has never shown any evidence of being childish in the past...

Posted by Timothy Okuda at February 23, 2005 10:30 AM

Post a comment