The IT Skeptic - Comments for "Gullibility: the extraordinary spread of crap factoids on the internet"

Caveat Emptor

Cary King — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:36:55 +0000

If a company actually believes this kind of hyper-puffery from their consultants, vendors or service providers - then I wish the best for them.

The average IT spend on bought hardware, software and telecommunications - no labor - is 52% (ranges, generally, from 40% - 60%).

So, the "best practices are the key to cost reduction, with potential savings of up to 48%" roughly equates to totally eliminating ALL labor costs. Wow, these "best practices" must be awesome.

I didn't do an exhaustive search, I sure would like to have a copy of the original Garter article. When individuals cite only an enormous body research like Gartner, and not the specific article, then any aware adult understands this is likely to be out of context.

I appreciate you finding this one. And, chasing down all the references to it. It is particularly funny.

It seems to me that this should call to question the truthfulness and trustworthiness of all the indivduals and companies who have used it.

Gullibility: the extraordinary spread of crap factoids

reasonable robinson — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:45:31 +0000

What a fantastic post. The collection of stories which show how people exepct other people to accept their unsubstantiated claims is brilliant - blogrolling you now! You'd better believe it LOL :)

Well I guess that ITIL

Visitor — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 22:02:22 +0000

Well I guess that ITIL reduces TCO by on average 48% looking at all these reports :)
(nudge nudge, wink, wink)

how many people think?

skeptic — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:04:27 +0000

Your question : Does anyone that thinks pay attention ?
My answer: no.
My question: how many people think?

Re: Crap factoids

Neil Hepburn — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:28:44 +0000

It's true, there is so much of that crap.
If I'm ever confronted with these numbers, I just put my data management cap on, and proceed to unravel the sources and methodologies used to produce these numbers.
When laid bare, it usually becomes obvious that there is no secret sauce, and the study was anything but scientific.
But here's another question: Does anyone that thinks pay attention to these numbers any more? When a statement is sufficiently vague, the author is practically begging to get their ass kicked.