> some random idiot on a blog post

So you're not ok with holding employees responsible for their work product failures, but you're ok with calling people with strong opinions about said failures "random idiots"? Hooray hypocrisy.

> That's why companies don't base their decisions on random posts or comments.

So companies shouldn't take customer feedback into account when making product decisions? That seem like a pretty bad plan.

>So you're not ok with holding employees responsible for their work product failures, but you're ok with calling people with strong opinions about said failures "random idiots"? Hooray hypocrisy.

I fail to see the hypocrisy. A mis-implemented feature (which might not even have been considered or prioritized at all) doesn't mean a "product failure" -- whereas someone not only failing to understand that, but also recommending the firing of a person they don't know because some pet feature they were looking for wasn't implemented well, does imply a certain idiocy.

It's like someone asking for a waiter to be fired because they didn't like a particular part of their dining experience, and somebody calling said person an idiot. Even if they're not (which is more probably the case), they're being a jerk, and that's what the second person want to imply.

>*That's why companies don't base their decisions on random posts or comments.

"So companies shouldn't take customer feedback into account when making product decisions? That seem like a pretty bad plan."

It also sounds like a bad deduction from what I've wrote.

>Calling someone an idiot doesn't threaten their livelihood.

Nor does someone calling for a firing on a blog actually threaten a livelihood.

You'd be surprised. Lots of cases of people fired because of a blogger etc asking for their heads -- even for things totally irrelevant to their job.

The "some random idiot" is correct in his blog post. Cortana could be the greatest compilation of code ever written, but here it's directly advertising a feature to the user, asking them to take time from their day to use this feature, which does absolutely nothing for the user.

Maybe not enough to call for a firing of some likely very talented people, but also not enough for you to label the complainer an idiot.

It's even more rude considering that the author is in this thread, responding thoughtfully and patiently to our critiques.

> First, because some random idiot on a blog post does not know whether the person "performed poorly at their job" in general. He just has a specific gripe. The other person might have done miracles in other parts of Cortana. There are such things as shipping priorities, and they're not determined by random blog posts or comments.

I'd say the _Product Manager_ of Cortana has performed poorly at their job if the released product (Cortana) is bad. And yes, Cortana is bad.

> Second, because people deserve chances for improving. Anybody at any current position has "performed poorly" at this or another project earlier on. Terminating or transferring them only makes sense if they don't get to improve, which a random blog post can't determine.

Cortana was first released over 3 years ago. That is plenty of time for a chance at improvement.

> That's why companies don't base their decisions on random posts or comments.

Companies should base their decisions on customer feedback, and so far all the feedback I've seen on Cortana is that it's downright terrible.

>>That's why companies don't base their decisions on random posts or comments.

Customer feedback on Cortana has been nearly universally negative. You don't need my post or comment to see this. Google around and see what you find.