Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 7

Please read my earlier post "Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 2, the Tangent" for background information on where these quotes came from and what the heck is going on.

The following is a response to Andrew's September 21, 2007 6:18 PM comment to Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 6. I was originally going to post this as another comment in the thread, but decided it had gotten a bit long and needed to be a new post instead.

Unless otherwise noted, indented text in italics are Andrew K's comments, and my responses follow the quote.

By your logic it is dishonest to Ignore IE3 and IE4. The Requirement Myth is accurate and is not changing.

Andrew,

I'm afraid I don't follow you here.

In Revisiting the "Firefox Myths" Part 6 and the resulting comments I argued that IE 7 needed to be included in the discussion because:

• It's the fastest growing browser in history, and still growing.
  
  
• It has 50% of IE 6's market share.
  
  
• It's the most recent version.
  
  
• It's the ONLY version of IE available to people running Vista, and most new PCs come with Vista pre-loaded.
  
  
• It's Microsoft's recommend upgrade path for XP users.
  
  
• Bug fixes for IE6 are likely to be few and far between, as most development efforts will be directed at IE7.
  
  
• It's been about a year since the last IE 6 bug fix.
  
  
• While I did not make this point earlier, I'd like to point out that according to most statistics IE7 has a larger market share than Firefox.

How do ANY of those points lead you to claim IE 3 and IE 4 should be included as well? I'm afraid your logic escapes me, as neither IE 3 or IE 4 meet ANY of the criteria I set fourth as arguments for including IE 7 in the "System Requirements" section of your site.

Each Myth is based on how it was heard. With requirements the version number was not mentioned specifically for IE while with performance they are.

I don't care how it looks to those who cannot understand simple logic.

Again, your open hostility is what drives the negative reaction to you and your site far more than the data you present. Running around accusing people of being stupid just because they don't think the same way you do, or because they disagree with your logic, is not constructive. I sincerely hope this attitude doesn't reflect your behavior in real life.

If you want people to understand and accept your statements, you have to take into account the objections people will raise. It's the difference between a persuasive statement that will get people to change their behavior and a rant that few will take seriously.

I don't want to attack you or your page. I want to help you change the things that are causing so many people to dismiss it as the ranting of an anti-Firefox Zealot. The first rule of writing is to think about your target market. For whom are you writing and who will be reading it? Who are the people you're trying to reach with your Firefox Myths page?

The browser news comment you are taking completely out of context. I stated:

"The Browsernews is even more biased looking at the sources as it trys to compare single domain page hits with companies who monitor web traffic across hundreds of thousands of pages."

I never said Browsernews uses thousands of pages for it's samples I said it is comparing sources that use thousands of samples to ones with a single domain.

upsdell.com is pretty straightforward about the sources used in the linked Browsernews article. The whole point was to reflect the wide range of results you get when you modify your sample set. It's one of the reasons I encourage web developers to pay more attention to the statistics from their own sites than to overall browser market estimates.

You keep claiming that the differences in the six sample sets constitutes some kind of disadvantage, something that discredits the article. Those differences, both in the sample data and the ensuing results, are the whole POINT of the article. The goal of the article is to get people to think critically about the numbers being presented to them. Isn't that, in a way, what you were trying to argue in your original article?

You're trying to discredit a few articles by linking to statistics that disagree with those statistics. You're asking readers to treat the number you use as superior to those of the original articles. Isn't it more useful to point out the difficulties involved in trying to get a "global" picture of browser usage?

People can argue the "superiority" of one set of browser statistics against another until everyone turns blue in the face. Educating people about the inherently flawed nature of browser statistics in general will be more likely to get people to look at a "firefox achieves xx.x% market share" headline with a critical eye.

I never stated the definition I used does not define IE or Opera as insecure you keep implying this. I make no such statements or implications. You keep stating it to make an excuse for Firefox being insecure.

I'm not trying to make excuses for Firefox's security issues. I'm trying to help you modify your site so that people take it more seriously. I never denied that Firefox has it's own security issues, but the fact that your site is viewed as a "hit piece" and not an objective, unbiased source means the points you raise aren't being taken seriously, defeating the purpose of the "Firefox Myths" page.

Instead of thinking "Hey, I should demand Firefox deal with the security issues in the extensions," your concerns are being written off as a rant.

I am bashing nothing, just because the majority of the Firefox Myths are overexaggerated positives does not mean that I am bashing Firefox.

Again, you're ignoring the emotional reaction people have to your tone and attitude.

You have a choice Andrew.

Option 1:

Leave the page as it is, occasionally updating it to reflect new data and myths. Continue responding to criticism with a hostile, attacking tone.

Option 2:

Rewrite the page to reflect an unbiased view of the facts. In the rewrite, address the concerns that have been raised about your site and do your best to anticipate new ones. Engage in an actual dialog with the people who criticize the site, treating their concerns with respect, even when they're hostile towards you.

The path you choose will reveal your true intentions with the site. Option 1 is the path for someone who is hard-headed and more interested in angering people than in dispensing facts.

Option 2 could very well make your site into something of a Snopes.com for Firefox, a relied upon and quoted resource that the Firefox developers could very well come to see as a list of issues they NEED to address.

Counterpoints are Excuses and excuses will never be added to the page.

Again, that arrogance, that refusal to even admit someone else might have a point is what's damaging your credibility more than anything else. Isn't your entire site noting more than an attempt to provide counterpoints to the myths and exaggerations you've seen on the Internet? You come across as dogmatically saying "If you disagree with me you're an idiot making excuses."