#Confidence Rape?
28 messages in this thread
This is a very disconcerting situation that may come back to bite us all!
In the recent press, in major PC magazines, at least two Senior Editors have
written columns bemoaning the failure of CD-ROM to deliver on its promise.
In one article, Microsoft's Cinemania was singled out and error after error was
cited. In the review of "Alice in Wonderland", for example, "Alice" was referd
to in some instances using the actresses' name (Judy Garland). Other glaring
mistakes were also quoted, and the question was posed, what good is all this
stuff if the publishers just pass on the inaccuracies of previous works?
In another article, a major reference work was exposed as being literally
worthless because it did not provide the information really needed, but rather
gave a commercial for yet other works which might provide the answer. The
original reference material dated from 1852. The editor pointed out that it
had been "shoveled" into a new format that could only disgust the purchaser.
My question is will this industry kill itself with stupid stunts like this?
Who is responsible? Microsoft certainly has a fine reputation in virtually
every area that it has chosen to participate in. If a similar mistake, as
apparently occurs many times in the CD-ROM Cinemania appeared in Microsoft
Word, it would be corrected immediately.
I, personally, do not want to see CD-ROM technology die for any reason. To me,
it is an "enabling technology" that holds great promise and that should be
nurtured, improved, and used to help us advance (conquer the information glut
through organization, or compound it with BS and propagated inaccuracies?)
Any discerning person can quickly see that the vast majority of CD-ROM titles
on the market are not very good. When vendors distribute the same junk they
have trouble selling on 3.5" disc at prices two to three times what they charge
for the 3.5", it is easy to come to the conclusion that there in a large number
of greedy people that will misuse anything that gets them more money faster.
That's business, I guess. The really frightening thing is that CD-ROM is a
quantum advance over the old ways of distribution. Its very advantages are
also its greatest dangers! Using discettes or even tape, putting out a very
large amount of info or data took a large number of discs or tape. On CD-ROM,
the ratio is far greater than 600:1 in capacity, and almost equal in cost on a
ratio of 1:1.
Perhaps we should organize a vigilante to police errors, bring them to
publishers' attention, and if the publishers' don't correct them, make the
information public.
This will probably have to be fully volunteer. If some publishers paid even
$1.00 for each error, there is probably not enough money in the world to cover
their screw-ups!
Any volunteers?
>>My question is will this industry kill itself with stupid stunts like this?
I don't think so, for each of the inaccurate or biased reviews, at least on
CD-ROM in general, there are articles and dedicated publications that praise
the media and its capabilities. There have also been lots on good video press
via some of the PBS programming, the network program you seem to be involved in
will help alot.
As far as reviews, I'm afraid we are in the same boat as stage plays and
movies, i.e. personal bias of the writer.
As far as publisher feedback, maybe its a group forum thing. If you see a bad
one, post the info here, then maybe someone else can locate/post the
name/address of the managing editor, then maybe someone (HI RICH<g>) can slowly
build up a publishers feedback address list for the libraries.
As far as CINEMANIA, I'd didn't see the review or have the product so I can't
comment.
As far as errors in data, its amazing, we work for several publishers and they
have said the same thing, i.e. lot's of consumer feedback when errors are
found, or suspected, in electonic publications, while these same errors were in
the print product and the publisher rarely was contacted.
>>there are a large number of greedy people that will misuse anything >>that
gets them more money faster.
Yea! The only solution is an informed consumer, and these are in scarce supply,
and not just in CD's !.
Glen Chapman
Glen,
Yes, bias of the writer is certainly a factor. We try to overcome that by
publishing as many reviews as possible on the same title by different authors.
If three say a title is good, one says bad and one says middlin, it is much
easier for the reader to "adjust" for the bias. The best part of a review,
however, is the constructive criticism–how to make it better, or what makes it
good or bad.
I guess this pro/con thing is what makes Siskel and Ebert so good.
Rgds
Jan
As a programmer for one of the older cdrom publishers, jan, i understand your
frustration with some of the cdrom titles. I am the guy who does the C
programming that makes things work (most of the time). I have personally
experienced frustration with the products i work on. Sometimes there are errors
in the text, sometimes articles are too thin, sometimes i see & point out
opportunities to make things more appealing. These are sometimes corrected,
sometimes implemented, but often put off till future releases.
My client (i'm freelance) is pure business. He adds features to the products
when there is a perceived market demand. For example, Motion Video is a hot
topic this year, so our new versions will support it (whether or not it really
does add to the products). Users complained that certain titles were unusably
slow, so we updated a whole lot of code and made faster titles (available to
those who called to complain). Also, users have been calling & writing asking
for the ability to print and save articles. This feature will also be added. A
number of other features, such as an SVGA display will not be added, mostly due
to time pressures to get the new versions out this summer.
Shovelware is a significant problem with CDROM titles. It is a fairly easy
thing to locate out of copyright material (like the 1852 references), get them
into an electronic form and onto cdrom. There are quite a few of these titles
available, few that actually add value to the texts.
The only thing that will control these and other bad title designs is market
pressure. If people buy the crap, others will make it. If the bad title
producers do not sell product, they will go out of business.
> Perhaps we should organize a vigilante to police errors, bring them to [the]
> publishers' attention, and if the publishers' don't correct them,
> make the information public.
Precisely. Well, a vigilante posse may be the first wave, be careful it doesnt
get out of control. Remember that publishers can only produce so much and fix
only so much in a year. Some errors wont be fixed immeadiately with new disks
sent out, some might be.
You might, personally, start a listing of abhorent shovelware titles and
others with severe problems. The list could be posted here to this forum as a
conusmer's guide. However, you should be sure to include GOOD titles too.
Jerry
Jerry,
It is really refreshing to hear your comments. I was sure that the driving
forces were commercial, not technical! You have reaffirmed that sentiment. Of
course, you can only make suggestions, and you will probably not get paid for
extra things you do. I certainly don't blame you for doing what you are paid
to do. Unfortunately, you are the one that will get blamed, probably even by
your boss when customers complain. Your pointing out your perspective is good.
Thanks for doing it. Software users assume that a slow program is the fault of
the programmer, and they need to be informed.
It's funny, but sometimes evey the ultimate customer is offended by programmers
that really want to do the very best they can. For example, consider Corel's
SCSI software. It is just about the best on the market. It is also the
cheapest and provides the most capabilities. I've heard people say they
wouldn't use it because it is too cheap!
Rgds
Jan
Jan:
Maybe I'm jaded, but I'm frankly sick of all the hysteria, and the judgements
about CDROM as a medium raised by our incredibly short-sighted trade press.
>>two Senior Editors have written columns bemoaning the failure of CD-ROM to
deliver on its promise.<<
Anybody who says the technology is flawed because they found a bad publication
is a bird-brain. Cinemania, for example, has some problems – errors of both
omission and commission. MS has recognized and addressed this in public.
Guess what! Every printed encyclopedia of film also suffers from similar
errors! Is the printing press in big trouble because of sloppy fact-checking?
I don't think so.
Judith Krantz writes really bad books, a real waste of pulp, IMHO. But they
sell, regardless of their quality. That's the nature of the business.
I think we already have a police force. It's called the public marketplace.
Some of the cops are people like yourself, who create and publish reviews – one
person's opinion to help others evaluate new products. The judge and jury is
the buyer. The fact that a product may be riddled with errors doesn't mean
it's not better than its alternative. It may still be great. If people buy
it, the publisher has the money to create a better pub which he/she can then
sell again. If people don't buy it, the publisher goes into the donut biz!
Probably the last opinion I would get excited about (positively or negatively)
is a senior editor of a major pc magazine. I've yet to see any evidence that
this class of consumer has even a clue about what CDROM is intended to do, or
what its capabilities/impacts are.
Keep up your work, you'll contribute more to the industry than those other
guys, and be a real part of the process, not just an outsider trying to figure
things out while the world passes them by.
Best – Rich
Rich,
I agree with you – most of the trade press doesn't know and doesn't care much
about anything. If CDROM is hot, they write about it. Their opinions carry
little weight to the really discerning reader as most of the opinions expressed
are full of holes and inaccuracies. They are commonly the result of shallow
work. Unfortunately, they ARE the press, and the printed word really does
carry a disproportionate amount of credibility.
It is precisely because of state of affairs that I am concerned. A bad review
of a product in a major magazine is just about as damming as a bad Broadway
review to a play. We all know that two or three New York play reviewers
agreeing can kill a play on the first night. Happily, these folk usually know
far more about the product (the play) than the typical magazine writer or
editor.
Bashing a CDROM disc because there are errors in the data IS the proper
response. It must be done with discretion and care however, so the public
doesn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Someone pointed out that there
are many errors in the printed works, yet no one seems concerned that will
cause the printing process to be abandoned. I agree, but what is different is
that with CDROM, most people can't separate the faults of the publisher from
the flaws of the medium.
The medium is, after all, just an advance in printing, publishing and
communications. In the military, they always used to tell us that
"Communications was 95% of the problem". A CDROM can be produced much more
efficiently than a book. It can present a much more dramatic impact. It can
communicate far more effectively. It is, in short, an "empowering" technology.
I fear that the average "Joe" reading one of these editorials will simply write
it off. If he does, we all lose.
You are correct–people vote with their dollars. They are certainly influenced
by what they read, however. If the influence is wrong, we still suffer.
I very much appreciate your kind compliments and encouragement. I am
frightened, though, that if we say something bad about a disc, that it will be
misinterpreted as a slam against the technology. This is a pioneering industry
(computers, CDROM, etc), and it must be able to pay its own bills in order to
move forward. Should we encourage shovelware? Should we "tell it like it is"?
Rgds
Jan
Jan:
In my experience, a few events of this sort rarely have the impact we fear they
will have, either good or bad. But, who knows…
As for..
>> Should we encourage shovelware? Should we "tell it like it is"?<<
Sometimes I wonder if "shovelware" wasn't invented by somebody who just
discovered someone else had just beat them to the punch with a good idea. It
is my personal firmest opinion that someone in your position should ALWAYS tell
it like they see it. People are paying you for your opinion. Anyhting else is
wrong.
FWIW.
Best – Rich
Hey Rich, If no one else steps up to claim the coinage of the word
"shovel-ware" I will. In a talk before the American Association of University
Presses in 1990 in Philadelphia, I used it as a negative example of CD-ROM
publishing trends. The context was that just because a CD-ROM can store 680
Mehabytes of information, a publisher should not be compelled to use it all.
The title I used in reference was,"Lincoln; The Man, The Car, and The Town In
Nebraska." Excuse the interruption of thought.
John L. Sands, Optical Publisher
John:
Your credit is hereby noted in the unofficial archives of CDROM history and
lore! Thanks for sharing the story: I love the example!
BTW, when are we going to embark on our other project here?
Best – Rich
John Sands?
THE John Sands?
Listen, I've a heard that ya al are an expeart in the old CD-ROM game. And I
was a wondering ifin youd frequent this hare forum a tab bit more. We would
all benefeet.
Signed,
The Hacker and Dr. Rom
Dr. ROM and Hacker, It is indeed an honour to be recieving a message from
y'all. It is interesting that a person can be in a fledging industry for a
little over 6 years and be considered an old pro.
In defence . . . before 1987, CD-ROM was just an interesting technology. In
1988 it became an industry(and an international standard).
Hacker, you should give up smoking. The cigarette smoke particle is so large
that it will obscure over 50 pits on your CD-ROM. If a pit were the size of a
grain of rice, the smoke particle would be the size of a basketball. Since the
particle is carbon encapsulated in nicotine resin, it would be a basketball
dipped in honey.
Cheers,
John
John:
I'm really glad you brought this up. I have been asked to conduct some
original research on CD contamination in other environments, and perhaps you
could give me some comparison data. How big would the smoke particle be is the
pit were the size and proportions of a Rubik's Cube? A roll of that pink
fiberglass insulation? A LeBaron convertible (with all leather interior)?
Even a simple chart would suffice.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Best – Rich Bowers
Rich, Do you have a grant for this research? I have some charts involving seek
times for the entire NFL and AFL put togather, trying to find the lower 1/10 of
a slice of Uncle Ben's Rice (uncooked) randomly placed somewhere on four
football fields arranged lengthwise.
If the smallest pit on a CD-ROM was enlarged magically to the size of a grain
of rice (actually the lower 1/10 split lengthwise), the corresponding disc
diameter would be 400 yards.
Cheers,
John
John:
Great fun!! Sounds like a project the USGS should sponsor, don't you think?
Best – Rich
Dear Mr. Sands:
With the advent of IBM's ability to orderly process atoms, it is now possible
(theoretically) to speculate on the true capacity of CD-ROM. The 660,000,000
bytes times 8 bits per byte is the current standard using the common frequency
of colared laser. However, at the micron level, this bit process uses roughly
33,000 atoms per bit. Now if this is so, ie. that atoms can be logically
ordered, is it not conceivable that 33,000 times 8 times 660,000,000 is the
correct theoretical capacity of CD-ROM?
Your comments sir, would be highly spiritually enlightening!
My Dear Boy, Hurrumph!, Hmmmmmm, Maybee . . . (Nearly?) I think we may be
starting off on the wrong foot. Firstly, are we talking of trying to alter
specific atoms of carbon or hydrogen or aluminium? I think not. The best way to
approach this would simply to make your 4 3/4" diameter disc an ETOM *
(Electron Trapping Optical Memory) disc. This would give you a storage and
retrieval capacity of 1 Kilobyte per cubic micron. This would give you a
storage factor of . . .(oh my!)
(Can someone please give me the displacement of a CD-ROM disc in cubic microns?
Don't forget to subtract the hole in the center.) This would give Archamedes a
headache.
Cheers, John
* (c) Ethyl Corporation, Richmond VA
MMMMMMHHHHhhhhhhh HHHHHHMMMMMMMMmmmmmm
I think a cubic piece of silicon 1" in diameter, if accessed at the atomic
level could store optically enough information to contain the entire Library of
Congress. It would be a stationary cube with dozens if no hundres of lasers
capable of pinpoint accuracy.
In our estimates, one bit of data require 33,000 atoms on CD-ROM. Therefore, 1
bit, if it were possible to "read" at the atomic level, could be handled with 1
atom. Ie., it is either a one or a zero. Therefore, the capacity of CD-ROM,
is 1 bit, times 33,000 atoms, times 660,000,000 bytes times 8.
660,000,000 times 8 = a large amount 33,000 times 660,000,000 times 8 = a
larger amount.
Your comment Sir?
Roger:
>>It would be a stationary cube with dozens if no hundres of lasers capable of
pinpoint accuracy.<<
Another case of reality catching up with imagination! Dr. Who has had just
this capability for years!
I have often, by the way, referred to CDROM as the Tardis of media, because it
seems bigger on the inside than it does on the outside, just as does Dr. Who's
vehicle of space/time travel.
Best – Rich Bowers
Lets create a title on the forum called "Replacement for CD". The title of this
thread makes me nervous. I keep looking over my shoulder to see if anyone is
reading my screen.
Cheers, John I like this subject, it makes my brain hurt.
You sound like someone who can answer this:
Why is that if the "top" of a CD-ROM disk gets scratched badly, the disk will
not read. I thought all the information was in the pits. Is the reflective
painting on top needed to make it work?
-bc-
Excuse me for barging in, but I can answer that and John can confirm or deny
and add his own eight bits – rest assured that he will. CDs are made by molding
polycarbonate with metal stampers. They are then metallized with an extremely
thin layer of aluminum (write-once discs are metallized with gold). This
reflective layer is very important because it is what reflects the laser light
– the pits and lands molded into the disc bounce the light back at different
intensities, which are detected and converted to digital data. On top of this
metallic layer is a coating of lacquer which seals the disc and hopefully
protects the metal from oxidation. The label is printed on this lacquer
surface. A scratch on the label side of the disc can much more damaging than
one on the "read" surface, because it is more likely to damage the pits and
lands. A scratch on the data side of the disc can usually be compensated for by
EDC and ECC.
Right, John?
Dana Parker
This is a GREAT queation!! The total life of a CD-ROM is dependant on the
reflectivity of a laser from the pit level to a photo sensor. An early test of
the robustness of the CD was demonstrated at a press announcement by SONY at
the 1980 Audio Engineering Society annual meeting at the Los Angeles Hilton. As
the story goes:
Sony was going to make an announcement that would revolutionize the audio
industry. The announcer was Toshi Doi, the father of digital audio. The
announcement was to be given after a formal sit-down dinner.
Doi entered the room, sat down at the table, and started on the salad. He
poured three different dressings on the salad in a theatrical style. Then, with
a gradiose move, proceeded to cut his lettuce voraciously both vertically and
horizontally. By now, everyone was watching and waiting for that which was to
follow.
Doi reached down into the salad bowl and retrieved a dripping compact
disc(with knife marks across the read side.) He wiped it off on his coat, put
it in the CD reader, and the press was treated to their first playback of the
CD.
The read side of the disc is almost one disc thickness from the pit plane. The
painted side is only 30 microns from the aluminium reflective coating. If Doi
had cut the disc on the painted side he would have pulled up the thin Aluminium
coating over the pits and caused a reflection failure.
If you see someone cutting the read side of a disc to proove its robustness,
ask them to turn it over and cut the label side. It won't play if you do this.
Cheers, John L. Sands
John, my last place of refuge from your jokes is now violated. I'm a broken
woman. Tell 'em about the "Dairy Products of the Holy Land".
Dana
Dana, I love a set-up like,"Tell them about Dairy Products of the Holyland." I
will post a message so we don't get tangled in this thread. Notice the title of
this message is "Confidence Rape" which is hardly fitting for this
conversation. I will post it under shovelware.
Cheers,
John
I agree, put it where the world can enjoy it. If you want a story about
"confidence rape"…have I got a great one for you! For your ears only.
Dana
That's interesting about Microsoft's Cinemania. I thought that it was one of
the finer titles to come out on CD. I sure that the errors can be fixed
eventually, but everyone I've talked to likes this title.
On another topic…. I don't know about the rest of the CD-ROM world, but the
games are getting better all the time….
William Volk
William,
I agree on the games.
BTW did you see ABC news last night? SEGA has apparently started a violence
and sex rating scheme for their games. Will Activision participate in that?
Rgds
Jan