The Inquirer Blasted

[druga runda]

???

Are we in for another round of website wars...

Apart from that comment above, as a regular reader on both sites it seems to me that the article, or opinion on the Inquirer integrity is harsh.

While you might say that the info they posted was misleading, they did qualify this a rumor (at least now when I read it).

The article in question is here
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5300
Furthermore they got Nvidia respond to them directly and they have posted that too now. Going further VR Zone felt free and interpreted the info too... Sooo...

So what I am trying to say is that the Inquirer is still a good place to visit even though they might be posting everything they get hold of, it is mostly correct info. When you try to be on cutting edge you can't wait for official announcments to publish at the same time as CNET and that is pretty much the reason most of us who go there go ---> To get bits of info eary. Even if the info is incorrect sometimes (please remind me when :D ) their predictions do come true more often than not. However this is only my opinion.

Still giving opinions like this

It's my opinion that none of the news they post can be considered trustworthy.

is surely asking for dislike from them. OK if you don't have any respect for them anymore...
Anyway... having friends,colleagues (or at least not enemies) probably is better than making enemies publicly...

Just thought to post this, and to end my rant I will still read both as I do find both of your sites good with plenty of interesting info.

(If I was wating for offical/PR-ed/*We have designed middleware to bridge the gap between mission critical applications to drill down into a 3D Web-based paradigm* info only and lame reviews I'd be reading CNET and ZDNET )

[MikeC]

You're right. I was too hard on them. I've updated the post to read:

"It's my opinion that some of the news they post can be considered untrue."


I also deleted my rant about hardware reviews referring to crack. This e-mail I received from a visitor did the trick...


"I was at least partially interested in reading your response regarding the accuracy of the Inquirer story however, the sermon on crack makes you sound like a ****ing idiot.

You must be a ****ing idiot and I'm assuming many readers will treat your future posts as such until you can strongly prove otherwise.


Regards ( to a ****ing idiot )"


Once of these days, I won't give a crap what people think about what I post...

[netviper13]

*cough* Detonator40 post *cough*

[StealthHawk]

i think the Inquirer does enough on thier own to make many people question their credibility.

however, the Inquirer also gets linked so often from so many different and highly trafficed sites, i think it is good that people are made aware that they should read whatever the Inquirer posts with skepticism. i would say at best there is a 50/50 chance that whatever you read there is rubbish when dealing with video card stuff. is bashing them on another news site warranted? i would say so. many people believe whatever they read, even if prior information seems to disprove it. and the Inquirer seems to have a nasty habit of quantifying rumors as facts, which in turn, get spouted off in forums as facts. very annoying.

perhaps the most disturbing thing i've seen at the Inquirer in numerous posts is the lack of journalistic professionalism. i've read plenty of articles there where the author is so ridiculously biased against successful companies like nvidia and Intel. maybe it's just an attempt at humor, but it doesn't sound like it. pot shots are taken so often, and then remarkably there is the ass kissing artlice every so often...by the same author!

i mean honestly, using just the past few months as a measurement, we have seen the Inquirer publish again and again things that would suggest that something is terribly wrong with .13@ TSMC and NV30, and nvidia in general. then just a month ago or so, they had an article saying that nvidia's stock price was undervalued and should skyrocket soon? um...yeah.

[nihongaeri]

Hello, I'm the guy that, I suppose, instigated this whole mess by sending around emails and translating the PCWatch article.

Anyway, I'd just like to say the in the article in question (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5300), that the Inquirer did indeed report false information (explained below). While, if you do read the whole article, they do appear to arrive at the proper conclusion that everything is rumor and speculation, this does not, however, negate the fact that there is one HUGE gaping error in the article.

Here is the quote in question from the Inquirer article:

"A JAPANESE WEB SITE claims to have inside information that indicates Nvidia will introduce its next graphics chip technology in the first quarter of new year, so missing the hectic Yuletide selling season."

Reading the rest of the article, I see no reason to assume that 'a Japanese web site' refers to anything other than PC Watch, as it is the only Japanese web site linked to in the article. I have emailed the Inquirer regarding this matter, and despite my having posed a completely explicit question asking them to confirm or deny whether 'a Japanese web site' is in fact PC Watch, the replies that they have sent me thus far amount to nothing more than 'I don't see what you are talking about'-type responses. I sincerely hope they are not this ignorant.

As for why the above quote is completely incorrect, I am sure any competent person can understand quite easily if they read my translation of the PC Watch article in question. The fact remains that PC Watch did in no such way claim "to have inside information that indicates Nvidia will introduce its next graphics chip technology in the first quarter of new year, so missing the hectic Yuletide selling season." And since the portion of the Inquirer article that I have quoted is apparently the words of the Inquirer itself, I see no reason not to issue a scathing criticism of the Inquirer.

Granted, VR Zone, which is linked to later in the Inquirer article, is also guilty of misinterpreting PC Watch, however, it is not quite to the same degree of the Inquirer's misinterpretation, which went so far as to fabricate the part saying that PC Watch "claims to have inside information".

All I want in the end, I suppose, is to have the Inquirer issue a correction and, even better, an appolgy, however, as they seem to have some kind of problem in responding to the entirety of the emails which I have sent thus far, it would appear that I will not be able to get them to do so.

[Matthyahuw]

Let the Inq die a slow painful death...I refuse to link back to them at EnvyNews, and I know most (if not all) of the staff there is with me as well...

If everyone stops linking back to them, they'll just die off...what a waste of bandwith that site is...

[Solomon]

The Inquirer is a total joke. The Inquirer changed what they originally wrote. They added the "update" heading and re-worded most of it to now sound like it's a rumor based news post.

For me, I like poking fun at this website, they open the door for it with their 50/50 news posting. But the stuff they spew they never take any responsibility with and when they are remotely correct, they leave words saying, "We are the first" or "The only site too..." or "We have said this before here..."...

It's amusing, they seem to tack on more dong to cover previous dong or to use the new dong to add to their rumors to make it sound like they are correct and legit.

I have a voice and I use it. I never link diddly to that site. Plus the owner, what a winner that guy is. Can someone loosen the string around his neck as his head is so big it might burst. :-)

For doing this for awhile, I noticed that some sites are droids to others. If you don't like something or want to comment on something you should very well do so. If you seriously think about it, if not adding criticism to your postings what makes you any different then any other news posting site? Seriously...

Mike, I wouldn't of deleted what I said. If that's how you feel you should stick to your guns bro... :-)

Just tossing in my two cents...

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

Oh! One thing I noticed over at the TI site is that about 99% of the posters plug to one email address: newsdesk@theinquirer.net, even Mike Magee's name. I guess they did this to mask any persons email address from getting spammed? Heh :p

[Monolyth]

I never liked "The Inquirer", and never will. They always release "detailed information, from source deep within" blah blah blah...

Frankly I don't bother reading anything they post, because I would rather read legit news from places like nV News & other such "Respected" sites. The Inquirer is comparable to their print bretheren "The Enquirer". I'm surprised they haven't claimed:

"MUTANT NV30 ATTACKS CROWD AT LATEST CEBIT CONVENTION!
details on page 30"

or...

"ATI DEVELOPS NEW STRAIN OF DRIVERS! CEO CLAIMS: 'These are more buggier than any of the others, we are proud to anounce the Apocolyptic Driver Set!'"

Btw, In no way was I picking out just ATI & Nvidia there, The Inquirer posts complete misinformation on just about every single tech topic there is. My advice is to stay away from them, go to your local grocery store and pickup a "Real Tabloid". Atleast their articles are 1/2way funny ;)

[Kruno]

There was another peice of crap they wrote about terrorists working for M$ and they made the bugs in Windows OS's on purpose so they can take over any computer in the world or something. That was truly sad.

[Matt]

Most everyone already know how I feel about them, but in case you missed the attack they made at me due to a *cough*Inquirer*cough* remark I made on 3DGPU (see bottom of this post (http://www.3dgpu.com/index.php?category=3&id=619)), here ya go: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4801

In any case, this new series of event doesn't surprise me in the least. I've posted up on my site some more details, but it's not the first time Inquirer has attacked us. Poor Mike gets so defensive, it leaves no doubt that what they do is posting up crap in hopes of drawing attention. Unfortunately, it works. A lot of people are suckered into it, and then people defend them with that "oh they are on the cutting edge, they're bound to be wrong" crap. Bull****, they like to brag how they are true "journalists" yet true journalists always follow through with their stories and only posts the facts that they've come across. The Inquirer are the complete opposite, and post whatever gets them the most attention. Is that so wrong? You be the judge, but for me, it warrants me never linking to them, and I've never linked to them or even acknowledged them before they even attacked me or my site.

I'm just waiting to see if Mr. Magee has one of his pet "journalists" write a stupid article again calling NVNews and 3DChipsets Communists or something similiar. :rolleyes:

[Kruno]

The "journalists" (yeah right) at the Inquirer are sad. The amount of bashing they do on 3dGPU is sad. Why don't they get a life and do some real work for a change and help out the community instead of degrading it?

MikeC and Matt, you guys should have hit them where it hurts, in their credibility. The Inquirer "journalists" are bloody liers and hold good websites like NvNews and 3dGPU in contempt because they can't get enough attention for themselves.

What good is it to go soft on a site with such a disgusting and disturbing demeanour?
The Inquirer are frauds, liers and scumbags. I would love to see them go down.

BTW: WTF is it the Inquirers business even if you were a communist (not implying you are). It is none of their business about your personal life. Tell the dumb f***s off. We need internet police to clean up such trashy comments and news from the Inquirer.

[volt]

Whatever inq posts, should be taken with a grain of salt...no more no less.

[Monolyth]

grain? gimme a friggin 50gal drum!

;) :D :D :D ;)

[volt]

hehehe
i actually stopped visiting them, because more and more news turned out to be hoaxes or plain bullox

[TheOneKEA]

Any news site called "The Inquirer" doesn't lend itself to having trustworthy news. The few articles I've read have seemed to be grounded in fact, but sometimes even those look a little oddball or farfetched to be entirely true. I don't plan on reading anything from that site soon.

[revparadigm]

I had gotten into a little e-mail spat with one of the "journalists"
there over a past questionable "news thread".His responses to my emails confirmed some of my sispisions...it seemed he didn't even really understand anything about what he was "reporting" on.
After that i take their "reporting" along with a .13 micron grain of salt...and smile :p

[Solomon]

Here is anothe reason not to believe The Inquirer of what they post. Check this one out. They are saying that Intel won't be able to produce speeds faster then 3.2Ghz... LOL!!!!
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5319

WoW! That contradicts Toms Hardware Guide (sure everyone thinks he's biased) but testing an "engineering sample" of a 3.6GHz. I don't know about you guys, the constant, "We reported first" on practically EVERY NEWS POST! They do is so so so annoying.

It's funny actually. They take a small item or a couple of words from someone and turn it around into a big news post which ends up false. I guess we should keep a chart! Wouldn't that be funny?

News Posts that are false
1

News Posts that are true
0

:D

Regards,
D. Solomon Jr.
*********.com

[pelly]

Despite the utter lack of credibility found on The Inquirer, I consistently link to their website. In my opinion, it is useful ( and sometimes humorous ) to be exposed to this type of information. If nothing else, the story will get people thinking more about a particular subject. In the end, they will typically come away with a greater understanding of a subject...

Personally, I take all the information from that site with a grain of salt...Somedays, they're the only website with anything interesting to read so I will continue to go there...

:D

[druga runda]

Hey, Mike,

I just checked the "refurbished version" and obviously it sounds better now. ;)

I guess you might still think of them what you do, but that is the whole point not to address them publicly, I guess it is better for you and for them.

Still it must be hard to be in the "public eye" as someone will always find some reason to bash you for your opinion. :(

It is probably the best to ignore the hard opinions from some people just don't forget that most of us who are here and keep quiet actually really appreciate your work (and obviously other guys who keep this site alive :D ), and that's why we are here.

As for the Inquirer, they might not have good info all the time, and we should take everything with a grain of salt, but that is what they are. The rumor site No 1. at least for me, and I read it as it is interesting more times than not.

and just to discuss the 3.2 ghz PIV.


In fact, the roadmaps only show Intel able to reach something like 3.20GHz on Pentium 4s, and AMD might well have an additional lease of life in the constantly changing Megahurts Madness both firms play.

One problem, according to sources close to the matter, is that when the internal chip frequency hits 6GHz, as it does with the 3.06GHz because the adders are double clocked to get the work done in a single pipeline cycle, Intel will have to eventually re-engineer the design of the P4 to keep it viable. But such a task is of such magnitude that to achieve the frequencies the firm is projecting in 2005 or so, it is probably more realistic to start another design rather than re-engineer all the innards of the processor.

The same roadmaps show Intel has to swap to a 90 nanometer process for the Pentium 4 to achieve higher clock speeds. While some people are speculating that Intel may demo machines clocking at significantly higher frequencies at the Intel Developer Forum in San Jose this week, the new chemistry AMD is producing could give Chipzilla some real headaches.




I guess the guy is not claiming that they will not go higher, but that Intel will stop at 3.2 for the time being according to the roadmaps he has seen... and that speed will ramp up with Intels .09 Um process, which is due second half of the next year. And than/ or in the meantime the processor will be at least modified or reingineered.

You should regard this as rumor - and as such I got it presented, I may come true and it may not, perhaps to whomever the Inquirer spoke to has some clues that we don't and that is why I read them anyway. As for current P4's to be overclockable, some Japanese guys took it over 4 ghz with extreme cooling sooo... it can surely go higher, but we still have to see how high will Intel take it in its current incarnation.

The only official info we have (i guess it is official, perhaps semi-official, offical announcement will be the release of a few weeks before, at least most of sites reports the same) is a Hyperthreaded 3.06 Ghz cpu before Christmas this year, and noone is denying that.

So the point is that this is not offical, far from it, but it is still interesting to read as we all (i guess ;) ) like speculation.

[rmannstaedt]

Seems to me most of you guys/gals are reading the Inquirer the wrong way. I have been reading their articles literally since their inception when Magee broke with the Register, and I have found very, very few faults with the stuff they write. However, they *do* write with that specific tongue-in-cheek English style which is so rare with Americans. I believe you call it "humor"... and if you don't understand that when you are reading it, then you are going to misunderstand 80-90% of everything they write.

Like their crack about GPU and communism, for instance. Yes, GPU was an internal security/counter espionage organisation under Stalin, so that reference is actually totally correct. It does *not* mean that Eva Glass thinks 3D GPU is a communist site - and if you read her article and think so, then I feel truly sorry for you, for you are missing so much of the meaning that it is actually pitiful. The similarity in the names is humourous - nothing more, nothing less.

The Inquirer is usually careful to note that their sources are personal, rumour-based. And in those cases where they get their stories from other sites, they give links and references to them. Unlike some other sites out here on the Net. I believe this is called "fair play", and it is good thing. We should have more of that.

Blasting the Inquirer for making articles based on conversations and personal opinions - aka "rumours" - is, again, totally misplaced. Such things are actually important. If you wait writing something until you can actually quantify it as a visible incident in the market, you are going to be so far back in the curve that the train will already have left the station when you arrive there. I knew about the rise of AMD stocks half a month before it really hit the stock markets, and do you know where I got that information? Industry rumours. Sites like The Inquirer. Likewise with the bust.

Not everything in life can be benchmarked.

[Matt]

I'm quite familiar with British humour, I grew up worshipping Monty Python, watched Bean regularly on HBO for many years, and Guy Ritchie's movies happens to be one of my most favorite of all times to watch. There's a fine line between humour and stupidity though, whether it's American, British, French, Russian, or Martian, and I don't ever hear about how humourous The Inquirer ever is. But perhaps you're confusing people calling The Inquirer a joke as being humourous?

While to an innocent bystander, that Stalin and GPU comment seems to be "tongue-in-cheek humor" or whatever the Brits like to call it, based on the emails I've recieved, it was a simple potshot taken at me and my site because I'm not one of their worshippers and take everything they say seriously.

You also do realize that "industry rumors" and posting non-credible information can damage and hurt a company, right? Especially when the information is totally incorrect, as has been the case many times, and has been pointed out just recently by Mike here on NVNews? Ah, but to you, it's all in the name of "humour". Right. Go sell that bull**** to kids under the age of 16, perhaps they'll believe you. :)

[rmannstaedt]

Actually, posting rumours and non-credible information and passing it off as factual in a way which is financially damaging, is illegal under most western laws and as such subject to libel and defamation lawsuits. But, that is not what the Inquirer is doing. I don't recall reading a single article (though with so many I could be wrong here) where they did not clearly mark the source and its credibility, and sometimes in the byline as well as in the article itself.

Actually, the article in question which started this thread states (my enhancements):
"A Japanese web site *claims* to have inside information that *indicates* ..."

Which says very clearly that we are not dealing with a hard fact, but with someone who says something that *may* come true.

It is the very nature of rumours and loose bits of information, that they are tentative. Based on budding trends, personal experiences, single incidences. Even personal beliefs. Rumours are not truth, and they do not at all necessarily come true. And noone can write about industry rumours and be right all of the time - or even most of the time. Can you?

And speaking of the relative merits of your site and the Inquirer, I would have to say that as far as I can see the Inquirer scores rather higher on the ethics and morals scale than your site do. At least they do link to your site when they refer to it (as eg. in http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5327). You don't. When I read a debate on the Net, I far prefer to be able to read both sides of the issue. But you prefer me not to be able to do that (ref. http://www.3dgpu.com/comments.php?id=895&category=1). Or what?

[nihongaeri]

I'd like to start off by saying that I mean no personal offence towards you. I don't what this to be a negative flame war.

I do, however, think that you have not quite grasped the entirety of the mistake that I pointed out in the Inquirer's article. Here is the quote again:

"A JAPANESE WEB SITE claims to have inside information that indicates Nvidia will introduce its next graphics chip technology in the first quarter of new year, so missing the hectic Yuletide selling season."

I assume that you have read, in its entirety, my translation (http://home.attbi.com/~bobcraig4/kaigai01_-_translation.htm) of the Japanese web site article in question (or read the original in case you do read Japanese). If you have, you will notice that the author does at no point claim "to have inside information". Nor does he even make speculation that "indicates Nvidia will introduce its next graphics chip technology in the first quarter of new year".

The above quote from the Inquirer (and they are the Inquirer's own words, mind you) has nothing to do with humor. It does not even come down to stating rumor. What it is, is a plain, straight fabrication. And while it may have been unintentional, it is still nothing more than a fabrication.

I will have you know, that I would still give an amount a respect to the Inquirer if they had given an effort to understand the mistake after I pointed it out to them. The emails that I have received from them, however, indicate no such effort. They apparently do not care of the accuracy of their journalism to a significant degree, something that disappoints me greatly.

I have no problem with people reporting rumor. I also have no problem if they want to try to be somewhat humorous while they do so. I do, however, have a large problem when people make conclusive statements like the one above, despite the inaccuracy of them. I have an even larger problem if no effort is made to correct mistakes once they have been made clear. The Inquirer, unfortunately, fits into the category of ‘an even larger problem' as I see it.

[Kruno]

rmannstaedt you right wing extremist. You should be shot, you Nazi.


BTW this is a joke. I wonder how you feel if I didn't tell you that was a joke. Making fun of a webmaster in that context isn't funny. BTW there is a joke forum at 3DGPU and it's pretty funny place. Though we don't go around calling Jewish people Nazis and American's communists. :rolleyes:

[Matt]

Originally posted by rmannstaedt
Actually, posting rumours and non-credible information and passing it off as factual in a way which is financially damaging, is illegal under most western laws and as such subject to libel and defamation lawsuits. But, that is not what the Inquirer is doing. I don't recall reading a single article (though with so many I could be wrong here) where they did not clearly mark the source and its credibility, and sometimes in the byline as well as in the article itself.

And speaking of the relative merits of your site and the Inquirer, I would have to say that as far as I can see the Inquirer scores rather higher on the ethics and morals scale than your site do. At least they do link to your site when they refer to it (as eg. in http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5327). You don't. When I read a debate on the Net, I far prefer to be able to read both sides of the issue. But you prefer me not to be able to do that (ref. http://www.3dgpu.com/comments.php?id=895&category=1). Or what?

I wasn't talking about libel or defamation, or anything of that sort. I'm talking about people believing rumors as facts, due to either ignorance or they didn't notice small words like "may" or "indicates" or "perhaps". People tend to overlook little things like that, and take things seriously on the net. Then stock prices go down, investors get jitterish, the competition can use the info as a weapon, customers-to-be get a bad taste in their mouth, and so on. That's the kind of damage I'm referring to in regards to rumors.

While I do like to link my sources of information(and that is the first time Inquirer has linked to us), I am not going to link to the Inquirer for reasons I've made perfectly obvious.

But using your preferations and logic that you've stated above, it seems The Inquirer is low on the ethics and morals scale according to you as well, since they didn't link to my site when they posted a debate (see http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4801). Bet that won't change your perspective on them though. ;)

I also don't believe in linking to a site for a debate on the front page to "build an army", so to speak. Then the site ends up getting emails like I did when the Inquirer links to me - for example:

My opinion -
Not only do you and your pathetic site suck a fat coloured ass, but you are personally a pimple-faced ignorant moron pretending to be human.
Just my (and many others) opinion.
Do the world a favour; eat ****te and die.

Essentially, if I linked to a site announcing my dislike for them, stupid people will try to defend me and issue death threats similiar to the one you see above. Or vice versa. I did however posted about it in my forums (http://www.3dgpu.com/yabb_se/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=1074;sta rt=0), just to get opinions on the matter.