[6d0debc071]

Well, if the girl really is like you, then that's a fairly good strategy and not necessarily like a con-man. If I can distinguish quality and she's another me, then in effect I already like the thing on good grounds.

The disconnect comes in the implicit question I suppose: Are they really like me? I doubt most developers are likely to see the world as being full of kindred spirits with sharp minds that distinguish quality.

It's like Amazon reviews for earphones, (or whatever.) If there are a load of really terrible reviews then that's good evidence that something really is terrible. But since most people know little about a product or class of products their ability to compare things to the top-end is pretty much non-existent.

If they really are like you, then the deal makes sense. If you know a bit more about the subject than average then the deal is atrocious.

An even better deal would be if they were like an idealised you, I suppose. Make the choices that you'd make if you knew better. But you can't communicate with most people on those grounds for obvious reasons.

[raylu]

So you're saying Basecamp tries to accurately portray a neutral individual making a decision to use or not use their product rather than someone who's conclusion supports their agenda? That's beyond ridiculous.

That's one step beyond believing an "independent, third-party" report commissioned by McDonalds to show that their burgers make you healthy or cure cancer or whatever. Basecamp is not even pretending to be neutral.

[6d0debc071]

I'm not saying they try to accurately portray anything. I'm just saying that's what it hooks into. Obviously, as with any communication medium, you can lie your arse off - and I'm sure people frequently do. You can do the same with stats as with testimonials - who's going to check, and how?

If you assume a company's lying, there's probably very little that they can say to get you on board.

[raylu]

There's a difference between being presented with stats and a company's homepage which is designed specifically to get you on board. It's not that I don't trust anything I hear, it's that I assume that a company is cherry-picking the best anecdotes.

But there are ways to present information that don't seem stupid. In particular, Basecamp is doing two things here that are misleading. First, they're not actually presenting data, they're presenting anecdote(s). Second, they're presenting them in a medium which should be viewed with extra skepticism.

I don't want to know what percentage of your paying customers like you (seriously? 3% of your customers use you but dislike your product?). What I want to know is what specifically you do and how you do it. Everything else is noise - and so the entire page is noise.

[6d0debc071]

They can still cherry pick the best indicators for their stats, and/or favourable statistical tests.

Still, I can understand why you'd feel that way, and I don't really disagree with you that that's more what I'd find interesting. But as to whether that's what most people would be interested in, and whether that's what would sell.... -shrug- I'm not sure that all attempts at sales makes you a con man. Trying to demonstrate to people who may not understand how a certain thing would advantage them that it would, or that people who are like them think it would, doesn't necessarily amount to a stitch up job. I can understand that you'd view it as noise, but it seems to me at the moment to perhaps be a little harsh to call someone who may just be trying to put the best foot forwards a con man when they may be operating in good faith.