What I wrote (and what I stand for) is that it is good to know that this article was written by 'content marketer' - meaning person with a SPECIFIC agenda for writing that article (by definition of 'content marketing' itself).
Thats always good to know. If anybody praises something I always prefer to know if there is something (e.g. salary?) which may created/influenced/PAID such opinion. We (hackernews) derided it on many ocassions. To give different example: I personally ask all bankers if they have commission on me (for specific recommended product), or not. And I consider it healthy to know and ask.
To make it clear, I think that there is a good content marketing, and that there is a a bad content marketing. The bad for example can be seen easily with searching google for "blog 10 best sleeeping bags" and similar.
While I don't take offense to your comment, I think you made it for a reason. It's an ad hominem fallacy. These are our staff engineer's words almost to the letter, if I had posted it in his name would you have taken it at face value? I think it's important for us to ask these questions of ourselves and analyze why we form certain opinions.
That said, I do appreciate the feedback, and thank you for your comments. I'll try to keep your opinions in mind with future posts as I certainly never want to come off as having an "agenda." We're not running some BuzzGitFeedLab mill here :) .
I thought Andrew gave a wonderful presentation, and yes, we do use Pingdom as a tool to measure these things.
> Putting aside valid thing that article was written by person with role at gitlab 'Content Marketer'
A lot of us in marketing have technical backgrounds and are GitLab code contributors, that's what made us competitive for the positions we were hired for. We just write a lot of the blog posts so the product teams can focus on their own work. They're also usually very collaborative.
Sorry if you meant no offense, it's just a bit of a button-press issue for me!