Onssi Architect Vs IPVM Debate + Manufacturer Panels

Someone today remarked that 'manufacturers do not want to be on panels with me.'

This was confusing, since I do not go on panels nor have any interest to fly to a far off city to speak in front of 50 people who are more preoccupied with checking email than to hear manufacturers drone on.

Nonetheless, evidently, my name comes up, and manufacturers are quick to shoot it down.

On the one hand, this is understandable. They want to be able to give their stock pitch without having anyone object to it or call them out.

On the other, the events are boring and inevitably have poor turnouts and low impact.

Can they not take a cue from sports or the movies? People want tension, they want some form of strife - protagonist / antagonist - good guy / bad guy, Foreman / Ali, Brady / Manning, etc., etc.

I still have no interest in being on such panels, but it befuddles me why manufacturers do not realize that if they want people to really pay attention and take time to go to a live event, they need to have some drama, rather than canned pitches.

[UPDATE: This discussion has evolved into a heated debate between an OnSSI senior employee and IPVM.]


SO SO True--- you either want to be loved or hated.. to be anything else you will be forgetton.

People need and want to be challenged and to do that you need to question, draw on emotion and push buttons.

Loved and hated? The megapixel man of the year! :)

Join the club. The love is often not felt here either.

I think it's fair to say you are the most feared / hated end user in the surveillance industry. Congrats!

It's the Northeasterner in me. We're known for our bluntness. Despite spending nearly half of my life in SoCal, I just can't lose it.

I believe you hail from nearby ;-)

The Hawaii thing throws off people. They either don't know or forget that I grew up in Brooklyn (before it was overtaken by hipsters)....

It's refreshing to see someone who is dedicated, has an opinion and will speak it, even if to offends someone, and this industry would be a hell of a lot less interesting without John Honovich.

At times, though, it seems as if the biggest troll here is John himself. Perhaps because the content that gathers the most interest/debate are stories that are either controversial, political (lately gun control), or that contain some element of mud-slinging, often involving John and some manufacturer or some proxy for one.

Now, bear in mind, this is how I interpret the communication that originates from John, so I don't know if the actual intent was so, but a few days ago, John was seemingly ridiculing Genetec for angling for votes on Twitter. I've also seen John take stabs at Avigilon (JPEG2000 "myth making"), Mobotix (MxPEG), Raytec (spot the mistakes), ADI (funniest defense), Panasonic (losing ground, facerec), Arecont (go on, idiot tech installed system) and I could go on (yeah, we have been in the spotlight too - sometimes fairly, sometimes not).

I can't help getting this nagging feeling that John is really an armchair coach - and instead of yelling at the TV, he's yelling through IPVM. Don't get me wrong, I think there is definitely a need for an independent source of information (NPR?) - one that doesn't have some agenda or is simply printing slightly edited stories written by manufacturers that run ads in their magazine. But on the other hand, the many incidents where the copy becomes a little too... hmm.. "aggressive", makes it seems as if theres something else going on.

I think John is a Diva. Yes. There... I said it. It had to be done.

Don't feel bad though, Carl is a diva too (and quite a few others in this forum as far as I can tell). What it means is that we spend way, way too much time on this crap when we should be clocking in at 9 am and out at 5 pm. Instead we should be preoccupied with improving our golfing handicap, tonights ballgame, the latest developments in the Kardashian family, or whether the right people got voted off American Idol/Dancing with the Stars. But we don't. I think the term here is "committed". If we were farming cucumbers, we'd be committed to that too.

I find it weird when people have little/no interest in the product they are selling. I once met a marketing person (not a very good one), who told me that she didn't want to use the application we were selling. That there was no need for her to understand the pain points, the technology or any of that. If fact, she felt it might impede her ability to write good copy. I was young then, and it blew my mind that anyone would say something like that. And once in a while, people with no understanding of the fundamentals (because they are too stupid, or simply don't put in the hours), will try to "teach you", which usually causes me to blow a fuse. When I walk around at tradeshows a lot of salespeople think I am some dummy (maybe I am), and the amount of shit questionable information I hear is unbelievable.

IPVM has offered some real gems over the years, and I hope you will continue to do so. On the other hand, the personal style, the very overt attacks on companies and people, while entertaining, it also seems somewhat unprofessional, and while it works now, it remains to be seen if it is something that will work in the long run.

Now, I need to get back to writing world leading, cutting edge, revolutionary, code that will unleash the power of IP video, and enable you to have a constant, uninterruped tactical overview of your premises.

If some Diva hadn't killed the voting, this would have gotten a +1.

;)

Morten,

"What it means is that we spend way, way too much time on this crap when we should be clocking in at 9 am and out at 5 pm."

I totally disagree with that statement, although the rest of your post makes it appear that you do too. That is the crux of an disagreement I have had way too many times with way too many people, including my boss on occasion. Speaking only for myself, Video Surveillance is a large part of my hobby as well as being my job.

While others may play golf, bowl, participate in or watch sports, etc. as hobbies, most of my hobby time is spent on this or related fields. If I'm not reading about or recearching Video Surveillance subjects, I'm doing the same in Consumer Electronics, space, other science and, as a slight change of pace, stock investing.

I never understood the strict 9 to 5 mentality where work is considered to be "a necessary evil". Having worked at jobs that didn't really hold my interest, I find working at something that I find continually challenging and interesting to be a source of great enjoyment which I have absolutely no desire to shut off at 5:00.

In case it wasn't clear - I am absolutely not proposing that you actually stop doing what you enjoy at 5 pm, and turn on American Idol. I am saying that I KNOW that you don't, and I KNOW that you are almost constantly thinking about video surveillance, because you are engaged, interested and commited to it (as am I by the way).

My point is that not everyone - actually, far from everyone, is that dedicated. A whole lot of people are clockwatchers, and when 5 pm comes around, they are out the door, thinking of watermellons and kittens.

We frequently bump in to these 9 to 5'ers (simply because they are legion), and I certainly get frustrated that people a) apparently don't give a shit, and b) try to feed us BS. This causes static, friction, conflict with people in this industry that really don't care if it's camera A or camera B they are peddling, if it's JPEG2000 or H.264. It causes friction with co-workers who carelessly ignore bugs, disregard ease of use and so on. And so we get labeled Divas.

But getting riled up, and attacking people who just want to earn a living and not care about the ins and outs, is - well - unproductive. It's just the way things are, and they aren't going to change no matter how much we shout about it (read my blog for example, I shout into the empty void, and I don't even get paid like John does).

So thank you for being a Diva, for being committed, and most of all for sharing your knowledge with the rest of us. If John isn't sending you a christmas card, he damn well should. And not one of those lame ass Web-Greetings cards.

"But getting riled up, and attacking people who just want to earn a living and not care about the ins and outs, is - well - unproductive."

Who are you referring to are people who 'just want to earn a living'?

"they aren't going to change no matter how much we shout about it"

I disagree. Our criticisms have had a big impact on many manufacturers. I am not going to flaunt war medals, but I know a lot of large manufacturers that changed their marketing and approach after IPVM 'attacks'.

"is - well - unproductive"

It takes very little time to publish criticisms. It is our research and testing that consumes 90+% of our time / expenses. A critique may take an hour. A test may take 100. And critiques are often read as much or more as tests, so the return is high.

Who are you referring to are people who 'just want to earn a living'?

90% of the working population

Our criticisms have had a big impact on many manufacturers

Dream on

And critiques are often read as much or more as tests

I thought so, but I don't think people are actually willing to pay for it. They may procastinate a bit in their day job and pretend to work as they read trough some troll-fight on IPVM, but that's as far as it goes. I could be wrong - but I doubt it.

Morten, thanks for the thoughtful feedback. A few things...

The era of people saying things and not expecting any criticism or negative feedback is over. Welcome to the Internet, everyone. This shows how backward our industry is, that it is still something controversial or surprising.

It was funny. At the beginning of IPVM, nearly 6 years ago, lots of insiders thought that I was secretly on the take from a handful of manufacturers. Until they saw us criticize every prominent manufacturer and then they were simply confused. Again, it's the Internet. New business models - far lower costs, far easier ability to reach massively larger customer bases. I do not need the old power structure.

In contrast to your 9 - 5ers, I really believe in what I am doing. It is that simple. Deep down inside, I 100% know that I am making the industry better by forcing manufacturers to sharpen their claims and integrators to improve their knowledge.

And while you contend that "it remains to be seen if it is something that will work in the long run," it already it is the long run. We would not to get to 6 years (this April), continuing to grow at 50%+ every year (including 2013), and be profitable, if the IPVM model was fundamentally flawed.

See my response to Carl - the same pretty much applies to you.

On the long term viability of IPVM I'll start by saying that it's easy to grow 50% per year if you start with a low number (1, 1.5, 2.25, 3.35 and so on) - keeping it up is the hard part. And by using percentages instead of absolutes, you are dangerously close to dancing to the same dissonant tune that a lot of marketing people shake their asses to. Instead of saying "we had 10 customers last year, and 20 this year" they all go "we grew by 100% - WE ARE FANTASTIC".

I believe that there is a place for IPVM (or something like IPVM), but I am not sure that, for lack of a better term, "bullying" is going to help you grow IPVM. As long as you provide great content, the training sessions etc. you'll be fine, but I don't believe for a second that people are willing to pay anything to watch you duke it out with some Arecont rep in this forum.

Nor I wouldn't put too much faith in the idea that manufacturers are being forced to do anything because of something you said or wrote. There are plenty of customers that tell us what they'd like us to improve and alter on a daily basis - some ideas a good, some are bad, and they actually have money on the line. And - I might add - contrary to popular belief, we are not complete idiots; we know that we have a few pimples on our ass and we do our best to get rid of them (and we still would, even if IPVM never existed).

Still, I am grateful that IPVM is around, and happy that my company has a subscription (I hope you are too), and although I find that the bullying might be harmfull in the long term (we can agree to disagree on this?), it's still quite entertaining.

Morten, we will grow another 50%+ this year... And it won't be hard. We could grow even faster, but I prefer to grow smoothly. When you have that many years of 50%+ growth, it starts becoming a serious business. You don't have to believe me, fine...

As for manufacturers changing, it has nothing to do with being them forced. That you do not understand this shows a profound lack of understanding of marketing and sales dynamics. The difference between a single customer complaining and IPVM doing the same is that we have a large global audience so when we criticize someone, it has reverberations through their dealers, end users, competitors, sometimes even investors, etc. It's that impact that often 'forces' the change. A lot of times, key people within manufacturers already know those problems, but it takes an outside source making it a public issues to push changes through.

Finally, the 'bullying' observation is fascinating. How did a lone guy on a computer in Hawaii become the 'bully' of a $20 Billion market? Seriously. There's literally tens of thousands of manufacturer employees and one guy 'bullies' them, really?

I know our numbers, patterns and trends. Unfortunately for you and your peers, having criticisms as part of IPVM is a valuable part of our overall offering.

You don't have to believe me, fine...

You are talking to yourself. I never said that I didn't believe in your 50% growth numbers, all I said was : Long term, I don't think your (at times ad-hominem) attacks will help reach that target. You probably look at your page hits, which seems to spike quite a bit around the time when you escalate a normal conversation to some sick troll fight. At least that's what I could gather from the public stats. If you reach 11K subscribers, then great. congratulations.

That you do not understand this shows a profound lack of understanding of marketing and sales dynamics.

I've been around a while, I even remember when you were only too happy to be on a panel for manufacturers and showing up for roundtable discussions. In fact, I've been in this game pretty much from the start. I've helped incubate two multimillion dollar companies, so I think I know a little about the market dynamics.

What I know is that you have an interest in giving subscribers the impression that you somehow hold sway with a lot of the manufacturers, and that if a subscriber has a problem, then you will step in and force (that's the term you are using) the manufacturer to change. Unfortunately it's a load of BS.

One huge manufacturer is ignoring you completely, banning you from their booth, yet they grow at 50-100% per year, and they have a lot more than 7K customers. Next you are going to tell me that you forced them to support H.264 - right?

Do you really believe that your blog and tweeting carries more weight than any individual that calls us up and make a compelling argument (or place a 100K PO). As you state yourself, we know full well our pain points, and every single day, we work to eradicate them, and we would - even if IPVM disappeared off the face of the earth. Do you honestly believe that a company with QA problems are sitting on their asses, reluctant to fix their problems, until IPVM tweets about it? They are fighting tooth and nail to fix that shit.

You have some real great talent on your team, quite often they write kick-ass articles that makes a bunch of people smarter, and better at their job. And you damn well should critique cameras, VMS software, distributers and what ever else you feel the need to review. But you also know (as you state previously) that your link-baiting and troll-fights attract more eyeballs than your articles (a 60% bounce rate!?!), and that's just sad. Isn't it?

But stay in your role as the Bill O'Reilly of IP surveillance. You seem to feel most comfortable like that.

Morten, you started by saying "it remains to be seen if it is something that will work in the long run." Now, you're position is "Long term, I don't think your (at times ad-hominem) attacks will help reach that target [50% growth]."

It is the long run, our strategy has worked and now you are quibbling that IPVM will not continue to grow at 50% a year?

If you were so savvy at understanding marketing dynamics, you would know that the 2008 roundtable discussion you cite with such glee that we "showed up" for was actually an email I responded to that SIW turned into an imaginary event. You know that, right?

And this claim is 100% false: "then you will step in and force (that's the term you are using)". The term I am using? Check the discussion. You introduced the term 'force', saying "I wouldn't put too much faith in the idea that manufacturers are being forced to do anything because of something you said or wrote." As I explained in response, the only 'force' is the feedback that the community gives after reading an IPVM article.

I totally respect your programming abilities, and you are legend in this industry for that. But you should take your own advice when you ripped apart your co-workers at OnSSI a few months ago: "true, bona fide idiots believe they are great at almost any task." Your commentary on the business / publishing / media side of the industry is so bereft of even a basic understanding of the dynamics herein that it is simply sad to see.

I 100% know that I am making the industry better by forcing manufacturers to sharpen their claims and integrators to improve their knowledge.

Oh SNAP!

I really did write my post before you posted yours! I'm just writing a lot of s..t tonite, so it took a while before I was done :)

I fail to see how - you - appearing in SIW has anything to do with my understanding of market dynamics. I would have done the same - hell, I would even appear in a video for Milestone if I was in your shoes back then.

How shall I make this clear for you? The next couple of years, I don't believe that IPVM's growth will be helped by you attacking people via this blog, via twitter or anywhere else you may post your comments. You may very well grow, but it will be in spite of this behaviour. You can then reverse the timeline and say "its already the long run, and it has worked great thus far". Fine. Keep it up. I don't care if you grow 10%, 50% or 100% per year. It's really pretty simple. YOU believe that your link-baiting and trolling is good for business. I don't. You must care. I don't. Sure, I'll comment on it. But that's as far as my concern goes.

Here is the quote:

I am making the industry better by forcing manufacturers to sharpen their claims

Who introduced what, when? (pro tip - CTRL-F "forcing" )

I am not proclaiming myself a genius on how to run blogs, am I? I am saying that I understand the market dynamics quite well - you refute this by pointing out that your participation in an article, by SIW, structured like a roundtable discussion was done via email. I think most people can see how weak that argument is.

I think your ability to take a well-meaning post, and turn it into some fucked up, bitchy argument is the only sad thing here, and what's tragic is that in your own mind, you believe that "it's good for my business".

Morten, why are you cursing now? You really have lost control.

The SIW point is simple. You are saying I was on that 'panel' (6 years ago) and that makes me a hypocrite for criticizing panels but as I explained to you it was not a panel at all, but an email I answered that SIW pretended to be a panel. Beyond that, I have not been at or on any manufacturer event or panel in many years.

We both understand OnSSI's weak competitive position, and tenuous engineering team, allows you to bully and embarrass Gadi, Mulli, etc. without any real ramifications so you can do things like trash your co-workers publicly and have them suck it up. But that does not mean you know anything about market dynamics or the media / publishing business.

Of course, you will dismiss this as link-bait, trolling, etc. but if you calmed down for a few moments, you would realize that your actions give an amazing glimpse into the ongoing decline and dysfunction of OnSSI.

So by now, I assume, you've weighed the obvious options for a direct refutation of the Mort's claim that you introduced the term force into the discussion, and found them wanting:

a) Insisting that technically Morten was the first to use the word force, since you only used forcing

b) Claiming that the expression 'sharpen ones pencil' essentially means do something that you know you should do, like your wife forcing you to go to the doctor, and therefore was used in a different sense.

c) Various hair-splitting equivocations

If you have something better by all means use it.

If you look back at the posts you will see what caused train wreck of an albeit shaky locomotive, specifically it was Mort's keying in on your use of forcing, and parroting it back to you. It seems that this was the motive for the bullying (which you were so kind to tell me to lookup the meaning of) comments also, which then start the death spiral.

Perhaps if you were to clarify your use of 'force' it could get the discussion 'back on track'...

On the narrow issue of "There are plenty of customers that tell us what they'd like us to improve and alter on a daily basis," vs public focus on some perceived shortcoming, would you care to speculate on which carries more weight?

Companies and people have only so much time, and must prioritize their energies. Often the highest pain points are addressed first. Would a private chat, or private pain points of customers, rise to the same level of focus as would public attention on perceived shortcomings?

I'm wondering who those people from manufacturers are, that even suggest having you on a panel. They either haven't read a single piece of your work... or they have a second grade reading comprehension? #Diva

Sean, is this industry really so bland?

Surely, the reason people suggested me / IPVM is that we are well known and name recognition drives interest / attendance. This is the case for anything - sports, movies, politics, whatever...

And it's not just IPVM that manufacturers are resistant to. They are also opposed to any sort of head to head debate between rivals. Even when direct competitors are on the same panel, it's almost always structured such that each person gives their own 10 minute spiel with no real direct response / challenges / etc.

Imagine the interest of an Avigilon vs Axis panel / event. Put Schmode and Fredrik Nillson head to head. That would be quite an event.

Of how about Genetec vs Milestone. Find some strong personalities among their senior people. How about Glover vs Palmquist?

I'll buy the popcorn, ok?

"Sean, is this industry really so bland?"

The people are anything but bland (you of course picked the least bland person, Mr Glover, as your example...), but the industry in general is full of conservative people whose major concern is covering their own careers. No one likes (not just in this industry) any head to head debate from a manufacturing aspect. You'll probably point out Bill Gates and Steve Jobs having co-headlining conference meetings; but other than some rare situations, I just dont think it happens.

I can't blame them either; the reward of making the other guy/gal look bad is way too little for the risk of muddling your message.

"the reward of making the other guy/gal look bad is way too little for the risk of muddling your message."

It's the opposite. It's the risk of them being made to look bad. And that's because the industry is so bland conservative. But there is another big risk emerging.

It's becoming extremely hard for manufacturers to get the word out about their offerings. There's so much content on the Internet yet so little readership for traditional security publications (e.g. ask Carlton), that manufacturers are struggling to be heard.

The big issue is that manufacturer marketing / releases is typically bland and uninformative. What motivation do people have to read / share / discuss in those cases? Very little.

They need to make their stuff more interesting - novel information, controversy, frank commentary, etc. Pick an approach but the status quo is, at best, a slow descent into irrelevance...

Yes/no?

I get the point you're making, but I guess my point of view is that we (the average integrator or manufacturer on IPVM) are not in the CE business, where flashy, innovative marketing makes sense. Avigilon's marketing is anything but controversial (IMO), but its still really really effective...

I can't disagree with most of your other points, and that's why prescribe to the Dilbert Marketing Theorem: Marketing = Booze + Guessing. Also I don't know if the Internet is the ideal delivery format for their target audience yet. I can tell you for at least 75% of our customers... it isnt. AM radio is.

AM Radio?

Rush Limbaugh? Glenn Beck? Michael Savage? or (Heaven Forbid) Dr. Laura?

Oh, the humanity!!!

Let's just say, Mike and Mike, The 'Herd, Jim Rome, Jay Mohr, SVP and Russilo...

Oh, thank heavens. Dubious, but not dangerous ;-)

This sort of thing reminds me of the plot in the old story 'Emperors new clothes'. On the Wikipedia page for this story, in the plot section...substitute pertinent words to the originals (Emperor>> manufacturer, Minister>>> marketing clothes>>product-X etc). John is the 'child' in the story...like it or not.

In this metaphor, are you Manning, or are you Brady?

Me? Ali.

Though if it's Rocky vs Creed or Drago, I'd go Rocky.

Is Marty Adrian or is he Mickey?

And I want to be the robot from Rocky IV.

I can't believe I paid money for this site. At first I thought it was a good place to get valid information, but it now seems I was scammed into paying for a platform for the inflammatory rumblings of a disgruntled man. I like how this article first started out as basically a self serving statement that no manufacturer would want to challenge you and the quickly it was reworked into a manufacturer vs. IPVM battle because one manufacturer' employee decided to chime in. You even changed to title to one that I would say, stretched the truth, in order to serve your needs. Finally you threw out an unprofessional Tweet to stir the pot even more.

Did you you ever work in the tabloid business because this site sure seems like it is turning into a rag? As a paying member I say pipe down and get in the lab and test some more products. All of this inflammatory back and forth is worthless to me. If I waned to listen to people puff out their chests and tell half truths about how great they are I would spend my time surfing Facebook. Also, dont mistake activity for achievement. You can have 1,000,000 hits per day but if you are spewing garbage what good is it.

Duane,

Thanks for the feedback. We actually have a groundbreaking test report being released this Monday that rates and ranks 36 IP cameras from 14 manufacturers based on a quantified measurements done in our lab. I think you will like that. We'll also be using this technique as a standard going forward.

That said, IPVM is a buffet. Some people like different things. This is more of an 'inside baseball' piece, which will appeal to a different part of the membership.

Btw, as for changing the title, I did it because it reflects what the post has become - no longer a brief observation on panels but a full on debate between the lead architect of OnSSI and IPVM.

All that said, I do not particularly like spending my Saturday on such debates, and I look forward to concentrating on new features / reports for the site.

We actually have a groundbreaking test report being released this Monday that rates and ranks 36 IP cameras from 14 manufacturers based on a quantified measurements done in our lab

I hope you are doing more recent Axis cameras models.

Hi Lee, which ones in particular are you interested in?

This one includes a range of newer and older Axis cameras including: M1114, M3004, M3005, P3354, Q1602, Q1604 and Q1755. Older ones are included many to establish a baseline / pattern of low light performance changes.

Hi John

Models I've used: M3025-VE, P1354-E

Ones I'm interested in but Exacq doesn't support yet: Q1765-LE, Q1614-E

Hi Lee, Of those two, the priority one for us to test is the Q1765-LE because of its long range IR (which is uncommon and would be worth testing, e.g., against Avigilon's comparable). The Q1614 is more of an incremental advance on the Q1604 so that's lower priority. Background overviews of Q1765 and Q1614.

I enjoy debates. And the resultant 'Flame' wars. :-)

Reading content eventually gets down to beliefs. While that may not 'seem' the case at times. If one reads carfully, you can see the name dropping and supprting BS. Which then showcase those beliefs presuming to be true and carrying the weight of an assumed credibility?

Example Mr Morten's:

"Don't get me wrong, I think there is definitely a need for an independent source of information (NPR?) - one that doesn't have some agenda or is simply printing slightly edited stories written by manufacturers"

The name dropping? NPR. With ones beliefs: "doesn't have some agenda or is simply printing slightly edited stories".

BAD example! 'Doesn't have an adjenda? NPR is leaning so far it's a wonder they can stand up at all. Hmm did he, Morton, go an NPR School? Sure sounds like the same tripe.

We all have beliefs. And I believe. You believe. What you want to believe.

Well it works when the door knockers come A calling with all the prepared/rehearsed (BS?) answers. Example one Sunday morning three came in force. I offered same after listening to their words. The leader said, 'Touche' and left.

- revoked answer

Revoked? Well the revocation didn't get erased in the emails. For those those reading after it disappeared. RE: NPR funding comments.....

Cute but no cigar. "the station has no commercial interest"? Really? It appears wrought with it. Pledge week? Is just one example. Again, mislaid credibility. The commercial interests are placing ads by matching funds. A cheap way to get name recognition. Yes? Listen closely and you will hear business names all throughout most segments. Like "here is another donated dollar. Mention my business again please". Remember some of that is supported by yours and my TAX dollars.

It's all about indoctrinating the masses with an agenda. Again. Listen closely to the accents. Plus around here (and I suspect across the USA) starting at midnight it is being fed from the British isles. I like English comedies. But that is not funny. Cheap programming?

Are those businesses really interested in the agenda? Or, the almost free advertizing?

Reading many most 'eloquent' (or wordsmith) posts. Sometimes reading from bottom to top finds the information presented doesn't hold true and the credibility (yours) falls apart.

Interresting thread. Now one thing I learnt in attending self help and influencing and management seminars is that if you just follow one person you get one side so its important to look all round. I have not seen another site that actuall does what IPVM does. So I am content with getting the information I need to do what I do that is not driven directly by a manufacturer.

I would like to throw out a suggestion to IPVM. What is the possibility of IPVM sponsoring or acting as mediators in debates between the manufacturers. Like a political debate. Pick a specific subject and get 2 or 3 or even 4 different vendors around a table and have them shout it out across the table knowning that the public is watching. A debate is not a panel where you have everyone sitting on the same side and look for comments form all. The debate is about 2 or more parties selling their story whilst the mediator is there to keep the parties on target.

"What is the possibility of IPVM sponsoring or acting as mediators in debates between the manufacturers. Like a political debate. Pick a specific subject and get 2 or 3 or even 4 different vendors around a table and have them shout it out across the table knowning that the public is watching. A debate is not a panel where you have everyone sitting on the same side and look for comments form all. The debate is about 2 or more parties selling their story whilst the mediator is there to keep the parties on target"

When I read your idea - the first thing that came to mind was:

Vasiles, thanks.

Undisclosed, funny!

I think it's worth trying out. I don't know how resistant manufacturers will be or how much a pain it will be to coordinated, but we will think it over and send some floaters out. Thanks!

Excellent

I'm going to lean toward Morten on this one (link bait, etc...) and away from him on the swearing & NPR... :)

I like this site for the research primarily, and secondly to hear what other integrators like me are doing/recommending/problem-solving. A lot of valuable info; I do occasionally feel like I'm wading through unprofessional waters to get this info.

Greg. Leaning is good. Careful you don't fall. :-) I too like this site for it's information and what it provides. Including wading through the waters as you say. I saw some that were choppy and a tad muddy. But unprofessional? Your opine ignores Mortens choice of a reference that was was not valid. My opine challenged that with supporting information. As with any discussion unsupported 'facts' ought be identified. Who knows those that may be swayed by them? Are you now "Link baiting" by character assassination with innuendo (swearing)? Kinda "feel good do nothing statements." How unprofessional is that?

OK Cal, I'll take the bait... er... :) If I could write headlines for my posts, then maybe they could be considered "link bait".

The supporting information for my opinion is the entire body of work which is IPVM. I realize not everyone sees it this way; that's why it's called an opinion :). I wasn't referring to Mort's panel reference, so I should have been more clear. Where I agreed with him in the beginning is that in my opinion there is a percentage of headlines & posts that are worded toward attracting clicks, and not so much for those of us that are here for the meat & potatoes. I review & edit a lot of technical copy, including writing some myself, so that's the background for my opinion. It seems that there's also a group here that appreciates the forum debates so I guess John is the real winner: He's keeping everyone (somewhat) happy. :\

It seems that there's also a group here that appreciates the forum debates so I guess John is the real winner: He's keeping everyone (somewhat) happy. :\

I think this is one of the best points here. The discussion sections should be seen, by and large, as simply bonus material. For anyone who spends any time on other open public forums, an oft quoted line is "no one forced you to click on this thread and read it." I understand that if someone presents some piece of information as fact, that you have contradicting information about, you will want to check it out and respond; but ultimately the complaints about this "Discussion" section just don't add up to me. Yes, John uses tactics to link-bait, that's literally his most important job for the company. What I appreciate is that he (generally) keeps those topics in the Discussion section. He doesn't create a front page "news" article that makes it seem like these topics are grounded in research and facts.

Just my take, I've been doing my best to avoid getting dragged into these soup kitchens since last year...

Thanks Greg. Yes, being clear helps. Especially noting you background. Impressive. Attracting clicks? Sometimes prodding is good. Brings out some interesting bits of information. And ALL information is good. Just need to separate the wheat from the chaff.