Screenprint from today’s TechMeme:
Did MS Win or Lose? Of course by now we know they lost, so what’s wrong here? It’s not Techmeme’s fault, the article they linked here is dated today (Sept 4th), but when you actually look at it, it’s obvious that the Times published a day-old material which simply “expired” before publication.
It’s not everyday to see such obvious contradiction, but since TechMeme started to lean more heavily towards traditional media, it’s quite typical to see the same news twice: first by bloggers, who publish it on the weekend, as the news occur, then by the big papers two days later as journalists come back to work.
Food for thought, Gabe. (Who, incidentally is not this Gabe).
Update: While the NYT clearly just stumbled publishing old information, Microsoft’s reaction: Strong Global Support for Open XML as It Enters Final Phase of ISO Standards Process is clearly a showcase of doctoring the facts.
The results show that 51 ISO members, representing 74 percent of all qualified votes, stated their support for ratification of Open XML…
You have to read through a full page to find this little hint:
Although no date has been formally set, the final tally is likely to take place in March 2008. ISO/IEC requires that at least 75 percent of all “yes” or “no” votes (qualified votes) and at least two-thirds of “P” members that vote “yes” or “no” support ratification of a format in the Fast Track process.
It’s up to the reader to figure out what really happened, as nowhere in the full-page document does Microsoft mention they actually lost a vote. 
Update (9/5): Today’s New York Times correctly prints: Panel Rejects Microsoft’s Open Format but this is published as news, without any reference to the previous. conflicting article by the same journalist. Techmeme list it as new…
Related posts: Ars Technica, Channel 9, Computerworld, bsi-global.com, Microsoft News Tracker, The Open Road,
Blog Comment Systems Galore
What a difference (less than) two years make! Here I was complaining about losing half the conversation …. two months later three comment tracking services debuted: coComment , MyComments and co.mments. Of these three, coComment developed decent traction.
Fast forward a year or so, and we have an abundance of comment tracking / conversational tools: TechCrunch just announced Intense Debate:
TechCrunch mentions JS-Kit, SezWho, and Tangler as competitors. But on the very same day Fred Wilson announced another commenting system:
Based on some similarities (at least at first glance) I thought it was Intense Debate skinned somewhat differently – but after all, there was a little logo leading to Disqus: another commenting/ conversation system.
Choices, choices … what’s a poor blogger to do?
Update: I’ve met – online – Josh from Intense Debate and Daniel from Disqus. The dilemma still stands (hm, should I say I’m intensely debating which one to try ;-)) but in the meantime I’ve found this video on Daniel’s blog. It’s absolutely off-topic, and absolutely worth watching (till the very end, or you’ll miss the point):