Those microsoft bloggers talk about the future too much!
I'm so tired of hearing that "microsoft bloggers talk about the future too much." There's a whole bunch of people blogging about current technologies right now - so let's stop disrespecting them by pretending that they are a meaningless minority, and instead figure out ways to promote them. Obviously that work is already in progress via the explosion in blog exposure on microsoft.com.
Why does everyone assume that these complaints that 'msft bloggers talk about the future too much' are accurate? Where's the data to back up the assertion? I have as much evidence that there are more "current products" bloggers as anyone else does that there are more "future products" bloggers. If you don't see any "current products" bloggers, then broaden your horizons; stop reading those future blogs or at least add some current products bloggers to your opml.
Until I see the data that shows otherwise, I don't buy that we as a company on average blog about the future too much. Yes, some highly visible bloggers do... but then again we also have highly visible bloggers like Raymond and Larry who not only blog about current products, they blog about 10 or 20 year old products! There, are you happy? ;-)
The site managers for microsoft.com/exchange, for example, have been doing a fantastic job of linking to blog posts as just part of their normal content on the website - not just a "here's the entire blog feed on our community page, have fun" but when they have a page about a certain topic and there's also a blog article that's related, they'll link to it. Even if the content on the website isn't in the blog, they will link to author's bio if that person has written for the blog. Community content is no longer relegated to the community sub-page off each product site.
Take the front page of the Exchange TechCenter, for another example. Front-and-center they've got a link to an article on the Exchange blog. Microsoft BeLux also has a site/newsletter where they link to blogs all the time; there there was a period of time where every month I'd get a bevy of new referrers when they linked to a different one of my Outlook tips.
I think we're making great strides in helping customers with current products. Heck, I just looked at my referrers, and saw this one: https://google.com/search?q=new+mail+is+delivered+to+a+public+folder+as+a+post. It went directly to the post with the answer.
By all means, keep blogging about future technologies if you want, and keep reading them - but don't pretend that softies' blogs about current products are few and far between. They're not going to gain popularity unless you read them and link to [them](https://blogs.msdn.com/tmeston/category/1553.aspx\\), so go for it.
Comments
- Anonymous
January 01, 2003
as in "magnum" Today I finished my important-and-urgent list early, and moved right onto my important-but-not-urgent list. At the top of that is to watch some Channel9 videos already. It turned into a day of sleuthing, but never fear, my... - Anonymous
November 05, 2004
I agree 100%. No reason not to blog about future stuff. It's part of showing the excitement of what we are working on. Also, when the future becomes the now we'll have great collateral built up for future google.... um MSN searches. - Anonymous
November 05, 2004
In fact, Raymond Chen - <a target="_new" href="http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/">http://weblogs.asp.net/oldnewthing/</a> - blogs about things that were "the future" 10 to 20 years ago. - Anonymous
November 06, 2004
I am another example of a "current Blogger." I think I have one post out of 50 that has any relation to something future.
http://weblogs.asp.net/btrst4 - Anonymous
November 07, 2004
I've always wondered about "What future Microsoft bloggers are talking about ?"
About 2 weeks ago - I finaly was able to find this link http://www.microsoft.com/future
And it will answer me:
"Best Bets for future
? Microsoft Innovation"
Yep ;-) I agree - best bet for a future is Microsoft innovations. I wanna see more of them implemented ;-) - Anonymous
November 18, 2004
The comment has been removed