tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708944154753335402.post7380032025724266268..comments2024-01-31T22:27:05.596-08:00Comments on Space Agency Notes: Social Commerce is Just Commerce!Ex-Chief Alienhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12849416626091793730noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5708944154753335402.post-61906368117736316912012-02-24T10:50:45.019-08:002012-02-24T10:50:45.019-08:00Where do I start? Wait a minute. I should stop lau...Where do I start? Wait a minute. I should stop laughing first. OK, OK I am fine now. This list shows how I read this post so as to be as neutral as possible.<br />(Disclaimer: Facebook sucks ®ick's big donkey Øick.);<br /><br />The List <br />1. Read entire post without clicking links.<br />2. Look at graph. [link]<br />3. Read Forbes article. [link]<br />4. Read Bloomberg article. [link]<br />5. There is no five -- LMAO & ROF<br /><br />Once I regained composure I could not shake the following impression Forbes made on me; this rag is highbrow "People" magazine.<br /><br />Hats off to Bloomberg for demanding any declaration of fact to have the source material handy for inspection. However, the comments by Wade Gerten are the so called out-of-context story (see: <a href="http://socialcommercetoday.com/e-commerce-experts-bustos-gerten-on-f-commerce-fail-or-fan-tastic/" rel="nofollow">Social Commerce Today</a>) which is kind of normal for news everywhere. I did not say desirable or good, it is why you have that "grain of salt".<br /><br />Conclusion: Bloomberg scores win due to having source data to read. It does not get 100% because misquotes are hardly an accident. Forbes? If you like fluff such as "People" magazine then go read it. Don't take any wooden nickel data it offers.fairusehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11638246873995073230noreply@blogger.com