<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>PHPDeveloper.org</title>
    <link>http://www.phpdeveloper.org</link>
    <description>Up-to-the Minute PHP News, views and community</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:04:17 -0600</pubDate>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
      <title><![CDATA[David Sklar's Blog: Correcting mistakes and educating users]]></title>
      <guid>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/4717</guid>
      <link>http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/4717</link>
      <description><![CDATA[As was previously linked to, <a href="http://www.phpdeveloper.org/news/4700">this post</a> on <i>Michael Arrington</i>'s blog mentioned the <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/ning-rip/">Techcrunch article</a> about the "death of Ning" (a PHP-based mashup creation tool). Well, <a href="http://www.sklar.com/blog/archives/76-Correcting-mistakes-and-educating-users.html">this new post</a> on <i>David Sklar</i>'s blog is here to set things right.
<p>
<quote>
<i>
So there was this inflammatory Techcrunch <a href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/01/20/ning-rip/">post about Ning</a>. Diego has already <a href="http://www.dynamicobjects.com/d2r/archives/003321.html">done a good job</a> of walking through the inaccuracies, so I won't repeat that.
</i>
</quote>
<p>
He <a href="http://www.sklar.com/blog/archives/76-Correcting-mistakes-and-educating-users.html">mentions three main points</a> that were mistakes highlighted in the Techcrunch article:
<ul>
<li>When it comes to developer relations, (just about) no question or comment should be dismissed.
<li>The alternative to constantly tooting one's own horn is not total horn silence.
<li>The old saw is true: "all publicity is good publicity."
</ul>
<p>
For each, he gives a little background, mentioning the real motivation behind Ning's methods and differing ideas...]]></description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2006 06:48:45 -0600</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
