0

The question and it's associated answer:

How can I find a compact camera with an ultra-wide lens?

This was recently opened and answered by a very prominent and respected member of this community. It asks what I see as a very valid general question about finding a specific camera model. The answer addresses this by directing the user to specific resources on an external website, and also gives a bit of context to help in using that website.

This is where I think the crux comes in. The answer reads very much like an advertisement for a specific website. That specific website is run by another very prominent and respected member of this community.

This question may come off as derogatory, but I am really at a loss as to why the answer needs to read so much like an advertisement.

| |
  • I'm totally unrelated to the other website. I just like it. I don't even know @Itai except through here. I recommend this web site too, for what it is good for. I'm not sure of a way to make the recommendation read less "like an advertisement" and still be short and helpful, which I wanted this to be, because the goal is to have a landing target for the not-infrequent requests we get for such a camera. – mattdm Apr 23 '13 at 2:43
  • This specifically is what I think makes it sound like an advertisement "Yes! The Neocamera camera database, regularly updated with new models, has a convenient search which will show just this.". The only thing missing from the advertisement is saying, "get it now, supplies are limited, only $19.95!". I also think that dismissing the competition as "unwieldy" is a great marketing tactic, as no one really knows what unwieldy is or why you find it that way. – dpollitt Apr 23 '13 at 2:46
  • Okay, I can expand on unwieldy, and I can soften the opening. Honestly, I think you're a bit testy because I wrote this in response to your question asking for an ultra-wide compact camera. – mattdm Apr 23 '13 at 2:48
  • If you did those to things I would be much more forgiving. Opening any question with "YES!" is a bad idea in my mind if you want to come off as objective. Yes, my question sucked, and no I'm not testy because you taught me something! I only come here to learn as I'm well aware I don't know it all! – dpollitt Apr 23 '13 at 2:50
  • Hmm... Tricky. I kind of read it the same way too. It's a bit like a commercial that says "How do you get whites so white in your laundry?" answer: "You use the fantabulous Uberbright Laundry detergent to do it!" Having said that, it's also does help to answer a real question that comes up and Matt did disclose the connections. The information is useful, Itai's site is excellent, so some phrasing adjustments will help. Disclaimer: my better half is a professional writer in the advertising industry... – John Cavan Apr 23 '13 at 2:52
  • Okay, edited? That better? I'm not really testy either. Although I should go to sleep as I have a long day tomorrow. :) – mattdm Apr 23 '13 at 2:54
  • Note, disclosure alone does not keep it on topic. I know matt is not affiliated. Just a reference - stackoverflow.com/faq#promotion – dpollitt Apr 23 '13 at 2:55
  • @mattdm - Better from my view. dpollitt - Agreed, but I think we can give some elbow room to strong participants when interpreting that. Within reason, of course, it does have to have value to the community. – John Cavan Apr 23 '13 at 2:57
  • Grr... system wouldn't let me do more than one 'at' reference. :p – John Cavan Apr 23 '13 at 2:57
  • Yes, I do think the edit makes it substantially better. I'm still wondering if we need a question on the site generalizing each spec and where it can be found, when we have this already: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/1570/… – dpollitt Apr 23 '13 at 2:58
  • Well, you know I'd like to close every camera recommendation question as a duplicate of that one, but I don't think everyone agrees with me, so I see this as a sort of middle ground about a specific feature search. (And it happens that, for example, Snapsort might be a general recommendation but isn't good for this particular thing.) – mattdm Apr 23 '13 at 2:59
  • 1
    Snapsort is a POS, whatever you do, just don't recommend that! Ok your middle ground may be a good idea. I see your theory now. – dpollitt Apr 23 '13 at 3:00
  • Well, a duplicate closure without delete keeps it around for search engines. Merges can also be used to tie them together. You know, we could be doing this better in chat... – John Cavan Apr 23 '13 at 3:01
  • 1
    Sorry, this does not add anything constructive, but, having done numerous google searches recently for camera review sites, I have noticed that Neocamera does not come up if I don't write the name myself in the search line, and even when I write it - Google thinks I made a spelling mistake and shows red underlining the word. So without a modest advertising a good site might go unnoticed. – Esa Paulasto Apr 23 '13 at 6:44
1

The original poster made some modifications to the original wording. All looks good now.

| |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .