Yea, I don't really agree with the trend of big, reputable news places having such an increasing number of random blog posters. There's a big difference between Forbes proper and Forbes random-poorly-researched-blog-article (same goes for other places as well).
Then again you can also raise the same question when the more traditional columnists start spewing random ideas about fields in which they have no expertise...
Re:What Killed Google+ And What Can Save It
by differentView on Saturday May 03, 2014 @02:06PM
(#7691743)
Whenever I read news articles about things I know well, I wonder how much misinformation I am getting about everything else.
Re:What Killed Google+ And What Can Save It
by eternalban on Saturday May 03, 2014 @01:46PM
(#7691666)
Possibly a subversively clever way of high lighting the value of "editorial control" ;)
Re:What Killed Google+ And What Can Save It
by whoismua on Saturday May 03, 2014 @02:22PM
(#7691825)
Forbes does this because it's rewarded by Google, they rank for pretty much everything so they fill it with junk.
Forbes has basically sold out all of their integrity by allowing pretty much anyone to write a post on their site. It's a shame, really.
> Guy Kawasaki released a 208 page book about it. You should be able to build your own Honda Accord in 196 pages.
What.
There's not a single valid point in the entire article, the most laughable part is the 'open source the code!' argument.