[rosmax_1337]

>I have to admit that the claim is more for marketing purpose to make it look impressive.

If you are going to be honest about lying by admitting to us that you lied, just state that it was a lie, don't euphemize it as marketing. Otherwise the "honesty" just comes of as manipulation.

[xitang]

I apologize for the confusion the statement has caused and comes off as lying. The statement is accurate and is in fact tested & likened by students and employees listed in the logo cloud. I appreciate the feedback that given it is only a handful of us, this statement can give the wrong impressions that it is more widely used than people perceive. I want to keep the project honest, clear and transparent as much as possible and I just create the issue to track this: https://github.com/xitanggg/open-resume/issues/7. I will remove the statement next to not mislead anyone and might consider adding it back only if we have more social proofs from more users in the future.

[goncalomb]

I guess you could just be totally open about it, and change the wording to something like "the open-resume design already helped some people land positions at", then show the logos. That way you are being honest, and doesn't look like a direct endorsement from those companies. You get your logos for "marketing", and you are safe from misinterpretation. IANAL.

[xitang]

Love this suggestion!

[rosmax_1337]

>The statement is accurate and is in fact tested & likened by students and employees listed in the logo cloud.

I have no doubts your claim as it was written in text was correct. The lie was by layout and usage of company and university logos. These kinds of "we are trusted by" and "in cooperation with" sections are common, it's what you're making in that section, and the usage of logos in those sections always mean the same thing: these organisations use/trust our software.

[skwirl]

Where was the lie? It’s pretty crappy to baselessly accuse someone of lying.

[rosmax_1337]

They claimed companies like Google and some universities trusted their software. If you read it word by word, it was only a claim that people who worked at the companies and who studied at the universities trusted their software, but the usage of company and university logos also made clear claim that the companies and universities themselves had endorsed it.

They admitted it was for marketing purposes, and I added that rather than to euphemize it as marketing, they should instead admit that they lied, otherwise their attempt at honesty comes of as manipulative. It is possible to tell a lie by the usage of logos and layout, not only in text.

This has now been removed from their website, you can see their original layout here: https://web.archive.org/web/20230625170119/https://www.open-...

[dotandgtfo]

I don't really attribute this maliciously. Yeah, it may be overstepping it a bit but the wording can make sense (but they should definitively change it). Developers generally aren't great marketers and these guys aren't native in english.

[rosmax_1337]

>I don't really attribute this maliciously.

I don't attribute it to stupidity. (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.)

They tried to use other organizations logos in their "loved by section" to make their product seem more trustworthy than it was. By using smart language they could have gotten away with it in case of a lawsuit, and most companies don't even bother to go after stuff like this. By the time a lawsuit could have been relevant, their landing page would have changed. It's because I respect their competence that I attribute it as intentional.

Don't get me wrong, I don't give a rats ass about what someone does with some large company/organization logos on their website, it's not that I'm trying to stop some misuse of their trademarks. But if you chat with us about your page, and try to be honest about that the section there is toeing the line of truth, don't call it marketing, just tell us you lied on your webpage. It's not the end of the world to tell a lie on the internet.

[caboteria]

> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Sorry, this false dichotomy is one of my pet peeves. It should read "Never attribute to something that which is adequately explained by something else."

[rosmax_1337]

The observation that stupidity and incompetence is more common than malice (by many degrees) is correct. It's not a true logical dichotomy, it's just a saying.

[x3874]

It's false advertising. This can get expensive quickly.

[LastTrain]

This thread is making me understand why they have to teach ethics.

[jokethrowaway]

It's not a lie if people from those companies are endorsing the product

Now, I know from experience, you probably want to hear from their legal team (or have a contract which make it explicit) before putting a company's logo on your website as an endorsement - but I doubt they'll sue you

[drekipus]

Just remember, it's not a lie, if you believe it.