[Foundation-l] Personal Image Filter results announced

[Kim Bruning]

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:45:29PM +0100, Thomas Morton wrote:
> >
> > It is very hard to cater for someone when you are not engaged with
> > them in conversation. Any attempts to do so are doomed to make an ASS
> > of U and ME (ASSUME).
> >
> 
> It is hard, sure; most users/consumers don't engage - which is why a whole
> industry has grown around finding out what they want and meeting that need.

Yes, but we're not that industry. In fact, (rightly-or-wrongly) we
characterize that industry as an Enemy.

> You have to solicit those views, hunt them down and beat out of them what
> their gripes and bug bears are. They will not come to you.

To an extent, but this assumes people are stupid and don't want to
help. Usually they do, if they know they can and are welcome. 

This has happened in the past, and still does happen to an extent
today. (Although many articles in news and blogs show that the
community on -en and -nl among others are becoming more and more
insular, sadly. The foundation is working to alleviate this).

> This is the basics of creating  a good product.

We're not creating a "product".

> You have the process the wrong way round - leaving the consumer to be the
> one doing the asking. But they are a mundane person flicking through reading
> articles, some might have ideas on how to improve thins. But you won't find
> them telling us without prompting.

Right, if they don't care enough, they won't. If we make the barriers to
entry higher than their ability to care, they won't either.

> This is why big companies will invest millions of dollars finding out what
> it is their consumers want.

Or, in fact, billions. We have already outperformed those companies.
There are no tail-lights. But -being in the lead- we risk losing a goal
to chase after.

> We are the ones who have to ASK
Obviously. Because there's no "us" and "them". Just an "us". And all of
us need to ASK.  :-)

> Usually because the producers think they know what consumers want. Which
> never really works.

That's why I oppose producers.

> By contrast your approach/attitude creates the exact dichotomy you claim to
> oppose.

I think that our original approach has had a proven track record. It's
only after people abandoned it and/or got sloppy that things went
downhill, after all.

sincerely,
	Kim Bruning

> (BTW your comments are coming across as acerbic/ironic and at times a quite
> patronising - that is perhaps hampering people's ability to respond
> constructively)

(Ahhh, your comments irritate me a bit too. I guess we're reflecting
that back and forth at each other and making it worse. Sorry about that. Let's
try hard to both be more polite to each other! Was this mail better
already?)