text: Firefox Community, Sickly Out of Control 339
  darlingbuddy writes "After users started reporting Firefox's 150 million+ downloads, this article mentions why it's a bad move on the community's part. The author writes, "I'm proud of the community that pitched in enough donations for Firefox to get a full-page advertisement in The New York Times print edition, and I'm delighted to see them think of creative ideas for promotion, but reporting total downloads every so often and immaturely degrading Internet Explorer is ridiculous. The thing with these numbers is that they are misleading at best, and the only thing they accomplish is immature fanboyism. It's a fact that Internet Explorer is inferior to Firefox with its extensive collection of extensions and ability to support qualified web standards, but does the community need to resort to using third-class promotional tactics with total downloads number?"
  I call troll (Score:5, Insightful)
  Personally, I can't see anything wrong with the promotional tactics "criticized" in the article. It is, after all, an easier way to get the message across than the ones the author of the article suggests ("Release updates, innovative extensions and add interesting features (not necessary by default) to promote with value", which, while a good thing, is hardly a good way to promote Firefox).
  Yeah, I know, I shouldn't have fed the troll. But it felt so bloody good I just couldn't help myself
  :7
  Re:I call troll (Score:2, Insightful)
  There's one crucial difference: honesty. I don't think that the ends justify the means. I think Firefox is a much better browser than Internet Explorer, as a web developer I wish people would switch, and as a user I wish web developers paid more attention to it. But I'm not going to parrot a meaning
  Re:I call troll (Score:5, Insightful)
  Mozilla is honest. The figure they give is how many downloads they have counted . Now, how many of those downloads were from unique users? Thats a mystery there.
  McDonalds has for years advertised they have served "millions" and later "billions" of people. Interestingly, they never spent the time to figure out that some of those billions served were sometimes the same people going back for more (sick bastards). But that fact doesn't matter since the truth is that McDonalds "served" that many people, not "served" that many unique people. And McDonalds is an advertising monster! They thought advertising the number served was a good idea. Probably 99.9% of Americans today know of that particular advertisement. That advertisement campaign was sooo good we all remember it! So, your idea that number counting in advertisements is not an effective means of promotion you are really, really wrong in that assumption.
  Re:I call troll (Score:5, Funny)
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Insightful)
  As long as Mozilla do like McDonalds - claim "millions of downloads", not "millions of people downloaded" they'll be okay.
  Soylent Green (Score:5, Funny)
  And with 175 Billion served, they have done us a wonderful population-control service.
  Re:Soylent Green (Score:3, Funny)
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Informative)
  It's not stating how many downloads there have been that is dishonest. It's issuing press releases like this [mozilla.org] about it that is dishonest.
  Pretend you know nothing about HTTP and distribution methods, and read that press release.
  Do you really think that isn't misleading? That it doesn't make the average person think that there
  Re:I call troll (Score:5, Funny)
  Breaking news: advertisement misleading, report at 11.
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Insightful)
  Can you come up with a better way to estimate "new users"? I, for one, installed Firefox for over 600 users from a single download. Maybe there's more than 2 million new users per week. (I suspect there were, at the time of that article, as s
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Insightful)
  Marketing material is supposed to convince you to use a product. Certain markets exhibit inherent features known as demand-side increasing returns. Browsers are an ex
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Insightful)
  Why? I was drawing a distinction between knowledge and coincidental belief. If you haven't thought about such issues, they can easily be confused. Socrates is a good place to start dealing with that confusion. Where is the harm in mentioning that?
  You are maki
  Misleading? (Score:3, Informative)
  How is that misleading? Firefox does have about 100 million users. There are about 1 billion Internet users [internetworldstats.com], with about 10% of them using Firefox [onestat.com].
  Re:I call troll (Score:2)
  No, I think average people read average news stories from average tech reporters who read these press releases.
  You give average tech reporters far too much credit. But in the interests of clarification, what exactly are the Firefox boys up to, according to you? And if average tech reporters can see right through the bullshit, why
  Re:I call troll (Score:5, Insightful)
  I agree that the download figures are meaningless. However, I can't see how quoting these figures is worse than any other trick used in advertising. Of course one can keep using this kind of rhetorics for only so long; at one point, they will have to come up with something new, at which point the community will start chanting the new slogan. But I still can't see how this is a sign of them being immature.
  Re:I call troll (Score:4, Insightful)
  You can't argue that something is OK because it's similar to something else that's *NOT* OK.
  Unless, offcourse, you subscribe to "It's ok to be evil as long as the other guy is too", or "aslong as we can be favourably compared to McD we're ok." or "sure we're lying, but that's common in advertising, so it's ok" or some other such nonsense.
  "Millions of new users every week" *is* misleading. It's simply not true. There are about 2 million *downloads* a week, but atleast half of those are likely to be existing users upgrading or installing on multiple machines.
  So, it's a lie. And that's nok ok -- not even if the other guys are lying too.
  Re:I call troll (Score:2)
  I wasn't aware that they used this slogan to promote Firefox. I must say that this is where I would draw the line between what's ok and what's not. For me, it is ok to boast with "150,000,000 downloads", but talking about "millions of new users every week" would probably already be a lie. And no, I would not be ok with this -- not even if we were talking about McDonalds.
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Insightful)
  Think of how many computers each person uses, and how many firefox initial installations that counts for. Then add the upgrades, which are sometimes new downloads.
  They should just keep improving the browser, and let their work speak for itself. It's been working well so far.
  Re:I call troll (Score:4, Insightful)
  And what is so wrong with reporting how many times the browser has been downloaded? There is obviously some correlation between the number of downloads and the number of users using it. One way to get people to try something is to tell them that a million other people just like them, already did it. It shows that the product works. Criticism (and self criticism) is useful only when it is meaningful and not just "OMG, teh Firef0x people iz s000 imature! We n33d to b3 teh profeshin5l like B1ll Gat3z!!!!!"
  Re:I call troll (Score:2, Interesting)
  Some will have meaning in the system:
  We're going to build the next generation of moderation on top of tags. That means we're going to poach your namespace. Some tags will have a substantive effect on the system right from the start (or very soon). Our article tagger will know about tags like "dupe" or "typo". When we roll out tagging on comments, we will teach it "troll" and "informative". These
  Re:I call troll (Score:2)
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Interesting)
  I wish that there was a way to eliminate the editors entirely and put everything on autopilot. Let the readers choose the stories, let the readers decide what topics are important.
  But this is an example of the good side of having editors. Usually Slashdot is non-stop pumping for open source. It is the Fox News or the Air America of Open Source software. There may have been a point to that stance in the 1990s. Today it gets a little tire
  Re:I call troll (Score:5, Funny)
  This is exactly how Digg operates. Unfortunately, you are overestimating just how useful other readers are in determining which topics are important. Turns out, most people are idiots, and this is reflected in the stories that make it to the front page. The only real difference with Slashdot is that you can hold somebody accountable for the idiocy.
  I think a hybrid approach would be better. Let Digg-style voting filter the unpopular articles away, and then let a group of site editors fix the writeup and decide which make it to the front page.
  Re:I call troll (Score:2)
  I think that the problem there are the layout of the site and the use of direct democracy as the basis for choosing stories. I think it is pretty clear that th
  Re:I call troll (Score:2)
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Insightful)
  Worse than a troll. (Score:2, Funny)
  "OMG, dudez! we all no dat frefox is TEH BOMBBBB!!!! and like IE is SUX0RS! (i mean HARD!) but wecan be k00l n not TOTALY thro it n thr bitchass facez!! NOT! LOLOLOLOL!!! serously u guyz lez be chillllll cuz we gosta reprezet teh awsums1!! ANDALL U IE BIACHES KAN SUK MY DIK!!"
  Yup. That's a pretty accurate paraphrase.
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Informative)
  Well, I can't comment on the article itself - since it has been
  Re:I call troll (Score:3, Insightful)
  Re:I call troll (Score:2)
  The article itself was very badly written, or badly edited. Looks like a sophomoric effort, at best.
  I think Gundeeps main complaint is that a Firefox installation, if abandoned, is counted as a Firefox installation (download).
  I suspect that Internet Explorer are counted on units shipped and downloaded as well, making the entire point moot.
  And, as you were, here I am, stuck in the trollnes of it all.
  Ratboy
  resort to using third-class promotional tactics? (Score:5, Insightful)
  Advertising is a game that has to be played, and it must be played in a fashion to make it work. Personally, I think it's somewhat sad that they have to resort to outlandish claims, but that's what works... it speaks more for the state of our society than anything else.
  Sloppy statistics is the tool of the devil (Score:3, Interesting)
  Unfortunately, since the devil makes such free use of out contextless "statistics", the side of the angels cannot forbear to use them as well. In most cases I detest this kind of reasoning, but since we're talking about counteracting one incomplete truth which functions as a lie with an equal and opposite in
  Re:resort to using third-class promotional tactics (Score:2, Insightful)
  Am I the only one that sees that pandering to the lowest common denominator for a GOOD product actually benefits everyone? If less people use Internet Explorer (because nobody updates anyway) then less people can have their lives/businesses interupted by malware. Thus, the big numbers convincing simple people for the sake of good, is GOOD.
  It's like health. Stay healthy, and you will live longer and more comfortabley. Not many people are healthy for the sake of their own health
  Re:resort to using third-class promotional tactics (Score:2, Insightful)
  That being said, 150 million downloads is a significant number. First off, it's big. I mean really really big
  This story is pointless (Score:3, Funny)
  That clause doesn't parse (Score:5, Insightful)
  If I could figure out what that meant I might have a witty retort.
  Re:That clause doesn't parse (Score:2)
  McDonalds now says "billions and billions" sold instead of exact figures. I take that to mean that they're hiding their OBVIOUSLY declining sales figures in an effort to mislead stockholders.
  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
  Let the software speak for itself (Score:5, Insightful)
  Re:Let the software speak for itself (Score:2)
  Why not?
  This is not a case for old school marketing, this is a new way of thinking; let the software speak for itself.
  If no-one's ever heard of it, it can speak for itself with an eloquence befitting Tolstoy, and it'll still sink into oblivion.
  Re:Let the software speak for itself (Score:2)
  Why not?
  Why because Firefox is OSS does it have to "let the software speak for itself"? Non-Profits need good PR too you know.
  Your new way of thinking only gets you so far. I agree that they shouldn't be spending money foolishly but they also shouldn't run away from traditional Media tactics just to be different. Hype is gets users, quality is what keeps them.
  Sorry, left out a word in that last sentance (Score:2)
  Re:Let the software speak for itself (Score:2)
  This is true for us in the IT community who have geeky friends and read magazines with technology reviews, but the majority of us techies have tried Firefox and decided we like it and told our friends, or have decided we don't like it and use something else.
  I see no problem with advertising to reach a new audience who may otherwise not be exposed to a potential alternative that may bring them some benefits. They gained their main market
  There is no bad publicity. (Score:5, Insightful)
  Third Class Promotional Tactics?? (Score:4, Insightful)
  *points at Microsoft*
  They started it FIRST!!
  Would you prefer Firefox and Mozilla to pay for researchers to put out highly slanted reports instead? Which class would that be? First? Second? If you ask me, that's without class.
  ... assuming 9 out of 10 downoads are uninstalled. (Score:5, Insightful)
  But, even if 1/10th of 150 Million downloads are by individuals - who continue to use Firefox after downloading - 15,000,000 is still a significant number, given that most OEMs are still putting IE as the default browser in new PCs...
  If all OEMs include Firefox in their new PCs and ask the user to configure which browser they would like to use (on first startup), I am sure most of them who know about Firefox will choose it..
  That said, I would say that promoting Firefox by saying that "Firefox Downloads Exceed 150 Million" is still valid... at least it is for the betterment of the whole Internet
  I probably screw up the average too (Score:2)
  I've probably downloaded firefox 4 or 5 times on each of those platforms, yet I only have three active installs.
  Re:I probably screw up the average too (Score:3, Insightful)
  The numbers are obviously unreliable, but they do lead to trends. Maybe a 'better' number would be a % delta over month-month or quarter-quarter. Then again, you're assuming that people would understand what that means. Pure raw numbers at least cater to the lowest common denominator in that the vast majority of people know that 150M is a lot.
  My browser can beat up your browser! (Score:5, Funny)
  how is this different? (Score:5, Insightful)
  Re:how is this different? (Score:2)
  I thought people gave up on the "but he hit me first" logic back in third grade... I guess I was wrong.
  What ever happened to rising above the competition, rather than stooping to their level?
  We all Know... (Score:5, Insightful)
  The fact that some users may Download multiple times while others will re-use the same copy over and over or bundle it on a CD for distribution.
  That said, there is nothing wrong with letting people know that Firefox is a viable alternative to IE, and using the download number is the only tool at hand to guage the size of the user community.
  Re:We all Know... (Score:2)
  Yes, but there's no way of knowing how accurate this "rough approximation" is. It sounds like you think that an unknown number of people being undercounted and an unknown number of people being overcounted somehow cancel each other out. They don't. Making up a number on the spot is a "rough approximation" too. Rough approximations are meaningless unless you know how far off you could be.
  Computer Science (Score:5, Insightful)
  While the article's author does, in fact, have a point about the statistical validity of the Firefox download count, he doesn't approach the subject from that perspective, and instead is ultimately guilty of the same thing he is accusing the Firefox community of: being completely immature.
  the answer is clearly "YES" (Score:5, Insightful)
  I'll only believe that IE is inferior to Firefox for end user applications if lots and lots of end users agree.
  "...does the community need to resort to using third-class promotional tactics with total downloads number?"
  Well, if 150 million end users agree IE is inferior to Firefox for end user applications, then I would tend to agree with them, especially given the extra download Firefox users must perform to install Firefox on their desktop.
  So...the answer would appear to be "Yes, Firefox is doing the correct thing by posting usage and adoption numbers." Can I help you with anything else today?
  Re:the answer is clearly "YES" (Score:2)
  "It's a fact that Internet Explorer is inferior to Firefox..."
  I'll only believe that IE is inferior to Firefox for end user applications if lots and lots of end users agree.
  Right. The original statement bothered me also. The story author's claim is pretty dubious. In consideration of the word used ("inferior"), which has derogotory connotations, it's hard to beleive that this statement is the result of some factual, objective analysis.
  What people need to understand about complex systems like soft
  Troll! (Score:5, Informative)
  It also doesn't include downloads from mirrors or updates pushed out through the browser updater.
  If anything, this means that the counter is underreporting. Also that this article is mostly nullified.
  Also, isn't this the 2nd link to cooltechzone in as many articles? I think someone's trolling for hits.
  Cool Tech Zone (Score:3, Funny)
  Ordinary users don't know what web standards are (Score:5, Insightful)
  Any non-geek user doesn't understand what is wrong with IE. You can't verbally demonstrate what is wrong with it. HTML standards compliance, full CSS2 support, Javascript, DOM1, wah wah wa. It goes over their heads.
  You could show them the difference but CNN and MSN and Slashdot and so on all work in IE just fine, with no huge glitches or problems, no great security issues (I tend not to click things at random).
  What I find more immature is site designers who make sites which ONLY work in Gecko (and not Opera and specially not IE!) and then complain that the other browsers are not standards compliant. These site designers were the first to blast websites that were "best viewed in IE" or designed using Microsoft JS extensions (document.all[]) and so on.
  Not so much the development team or Mozilla marketing fanboys but basically a pretentious, self-righteous, deluded few.
  Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar (Score:2)
  Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar (Score:2)
  Please be a bit more careful with your terminology. There's a big difference between an HTML attribute and a Javascript property, and a big difference between an HTML tag and an HTML element.
  I'm going to interpret that as "why Firefox can get and set the src property of an HTMLInputElement corresponding to an <input> element with a type attribute of image.
  The reason
  Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar (Score:3, Informative)
  Show me a standards-compliant page that renders differently in Opera. I do have *one* example where they render differently, where I think Opera is the one being standards-compliant. In my experience they're almost pixel-perfect twins though. As for IE... you don't even have to *try* to make that render crazy.
  Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar (Score:4, Insightful)
  Actually, I've found you can verbalize what's wrong with IE quite easily:
  works pretty effectively.
  Also effective:
  And the closer:
  Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar (Score:2, Interesting)
  When browsing the web, I see "best viewed with Firefox" buttons quite frequently. Every once in awhile, I'll even run into a site that uses a browser detection script that either tells me to switch browsers (I currently use Opera) or deliberately prevents me from reading the content. Luckily, I can mask my browser, but it's still annoying and having to do that prevents accurate browser stat
  You mean, like Slashdot??! (Score:2)
  Poor argument. (Score:2, Informative)
  See this page [comcast.net] for a more thorough list of inaccuracies that are continually perpetuated by the Firefox community.
  Since When... (Score:2, Insightful)
  why should you report numbers? (Score:5, Insightful)
  A fact???? (Score:4, Insightful)
  Building Community (Score:2)
  Whatever the case, this whole article sounds more than a little trollish.
  Reporting total downloads makes sense (Score:2)
  Is this number an accurate representation of the number of users of that product? No. Who
  So, then (Score:2)
  Trolly. Cute. At least it gets everyone's blood moving on a Monday morning.
  Marketing-- okay. Crashing-- no! (Score:3, Insightful)
  Best to leave marketing to the professionals. Geeks don't understand it and never will. If a full page ad in the NYTimes is what they need, then by all means, bless them.
  However, the thing that will kill firefox more effectively than anything else is if it loses its repuation as a stable and quick browser. The more frequent crashes since 1.0.7 have started a little buzz of criticism. The most important thing mozilla should do NOW is to address the instability problems quickly and completely.
  Put the geeks to work on that. Put the biz-dev-marketing people to work on NYTimes.
  Recent Firefox Releases *crash* all the time (Score:4, Informative)
  The crashes are simply out-of-control.
  The only relevant measure (Score:3, Interesting)
  Re:The only relevant measure (Score:3, Informative)
  Relative truth... (Score:2)
  Slashdot Quality (Score:3, Insightful)
  So who's the fanboy? (Score:2, Insightful)
  Why must he denigrate IE so? He sounds like such a fanboy.
  The numbers game is a fair way to win hearts. (Score:2)
  You are painfully aware that the common computer user is doesn't have the skills or knowledge to choose the right software. He has seen too much Microsoft publicity. He is corrupted by the Microsoft-financed "get-the-facts" propaganda campaign. When it comes to technology, his mind is no longer
  whatever (Score:2)
  err, well you know (Score:2)
  We do what the people demand and they demand big numbers! Huge ones! You could have the best product in the world but without big numbers and shameless advertising that the average joe eats up like cupcakes, noone will use it.
  So what metric would you prefer? (Score:2)
  What metric would you prefer? Installed base? Good luck getting those numbers for Firefox, never mind the fact that Microsoft has the upper hand with IE by default.
  Or perhaps the point of TFA is that Firefox shouldn't do marketing and publicity, and just let it spread by word-of-mouth. I'd be fine with that, if Firefox was pre-installed and set as default browser on every PC sold, like its major competitor.
  The fact is, 150 million downloads IS a meaningful fig
  Re:So what metric would you prefer? (Score:2)
  Re:So what metric would you prefer? (Score:2)
  But why would wou want your publicity numbers to show that you're still just a significant minority player? Defeats the whole purpose of marketing.
  I agree, your stat is more useful to those that are already in the know about Firefox. But to the people the ads and publicity are targeted to, 150 million downloads is much more effective that 22% (if that) tr
  Troll (Score:2)
  "but does the community need to resort to using third-class promotional tactics with total downloads number?""
  As an advertising executive, all I have to say to this guy is WELCOME TO THE WORLD OF NEW MEDIA!
  These "third-class" promotional tactics are HIGHLY effective, and cut through the other garbage out there. And aside from that, I would much rather see a company relying on the goodwill of its us
  Active Directory deployment (Score:2)
  Let's not forget that you can also install firefox via active directory and even have it managable now.MSI for Firefox [frontmotion.com]
  whos Sickly? (Score:2)
  Not misleading, just reporting a different figure (Score:2)
  (In fact, it's totally within reason that Firefox *does* have that many users -- since most web analytics firms place FF at about 11% market share, and there're in excess of a billion people using the Web on the planet. But I'm not going to make that claim since I haven't done my research.)
  So, what does the figure "150 million" represent? Simply and
  Inferior Logic (Score:2)
  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but in a submission criticizing the FireFox Community of 'immature fanboyism', isn't it kind of stupid to make this statement?
  Yup, it is really tacky when you publish (Score:2)
  Billions and Billions Served (Score:2)
  Crossing chasms (Score:2)
  The early adopters ask questions like "what advantage can I gain?"
  The mainstream asks "who do I know that uses this?"
  Advertising your high levels of innovation attracts the early adopters but repels the mainstream.
  Advertising how many other users there are attracts the mainstream, but ap
  Media: Sickly out of control (Score:4, Interesting)
  "Sickly Out of Control?" (Score:3, Insightful)
  Re:Affectionate? (Score:4, Funny)
  You are obviously not empowered to actualize your full reading comprehensive potential.
  It's off to the indoctrinative camps with you!
  Re:Affectionate? (Score:2)
  The post your are replying to is intended as what is commonly referred to as 'sarcasm'. Sorry if that was unclear.
  Now get on that train! Looks like you need some indoctrining too!
  Re:Affectionate? (Score:2)
  Affectionate is not a verb.
  Tell that to the author of TFA:
  I agree that Firefox has literally changed the way we browse the Internet, but that doesn't mean that we have to affectionate the browser uncontrollably and recklessly.
  Re:Affectionate? (Score:2)
  I do not 'affectionate' Mary!
  Re:This is not the website you are looking for (Score:2)
  This article makes broad, knee-jerk statements about a wide and diverse community based on a few scattered facts and ideas. Which I'm sure is different than the statistics-skewing and fanboyism being ranted about. Somehow.
  Re:This is not the website you are looking for (Score:4, Insightful)
  Where? Where? [straightdope.com]