Read, Michael doesn't actually care about the articles content, he's just in it for the money.Any regular should know that by now it's all about maximizing page views by linking to related articles...
Michael, here's a hint write better articles with actual content and you'll get more regular readers and thus more pageviews. I know you think spamming links to past articles gets you more page views, but here's a hint it doesn't do as much as actually taking the time to research and write actual articles with actual content. You would have more regulars and more page views if you wrote fewer but more thought provoking and relevant articles. This habit of posting 5 useless linkspam articles a day for nothing other than the page views is rather pathetic. You could have spent that time expanding on one of the real articles making them more insightful or useful to the reader. On a related note, those "well nothing has changed" articles like your reasent PowerVR graphics need to stop, a lack of news on a subject is not news so don't waste your time with it.
EDIT: To the people saying they like the ease of reading related posts, he already has a related posts box below the article, this is just link spam, especially because there have been plenty of times where he has linked to completely unrelated articles numerous times within articles.
Last edited by Jonimus; 06-20-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Lack of news like the recent PowerVR part are absolutely news. Without them all you'd have is blog posts from three years ago saying it doesn't work.
No authoritative source for the current state for those who don't actively follow the thing.
Also note how I'm not just blindly saying Michael sucks, I am giving suggestions on how to improve. I may not be a journalist but I can see money grubbing sensationalism when it appears.
If you think I am linguistic ability then please step up and provide suggestions, I am all ears.
As for needing an "authoritative source" fine I'll give you that but if you want phoronix to be considered a reliable source for any sort of info I'd expect Michael to provide third party sources where his info could be double checked once in a while, you know, like how other news outlets operate.
*hands Jonimus a beer*
But in all seriousness while michael has gotten better at linking to mailing list threads and commit logs the lack of source links or even something more than a name drop in most of his articles leave many wondering if he should be believed. We all know he likes to stretch the truth I just ask he give us some way to attempt to verify his claims when possible. If he cannot then he should think twice before posting, otherwise it is just hurting his credability. It doesn't matter if he ends up being right or wrong, the issue is he rarely if ever gives the reader any backing other than his word that his claims are founded in fact.