Software Developer magazine has a monthly announcement newsletter for vendors to use. On April 17, I received an email from eHelp Corporation through this arrangement. Following is the complete email as I received it, minus the <HTML>, <BODY> and a couple other tags.
Before anyone gets any ideas about possible copyright infringement, might I remind them of the incident a couple years back when I discovered eHelp (at that time Blue Sky) had hijacked part of the HTML Help class module on this site without giving me any kind of credit whatsoever. It appeared they had written the code. This code was, and still is, part of the VB6 sample in their RoboHelp Community site. I also sent this issue to the HATT list at that time (which may have still been the WinHlp-L list then) and eHelp received a severe brow-beating from the members then as well. I certainly could have gone further than wanting nothing more than credit given within their posted sample. So, I feel I'm well within my rights to post an advertising email that belittles an entire profession, and the fine folks who work within it, in the eyes of the members of another profession.
While you're considering all of this, click here for a look at another instance of eHelp infringing on a copyright.(This page worked on the KnowledgeBase site until April 25th or 26th, 2002, at which time it was removed. It's curious this would occur while the page you're now reading was being actively assembled.)
On to the contents of the email ...
| From: eHelp Corporation [softdev@dsi-enews.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 4:14 PM To: delmar@tc3net.com Subject: Accelerate your Software Development |
 | |||||||||
|
|
 | ||||||||
 |
|||||||||
|
This message is brought to
you as a valued subscriber to Software Development Magazine. From time to time
we may forward relevant information to subscribers who indicate their desire
to receive it. |
I immediately forwarded quoted portions of this to the HATT list, whose over 2000 members consists mostly of help authors and technical writers. Here's what I wrote:
|
It's no wonder developers have no respect for help authors. Moments ago, I received an email from eHelp with the subject line of 'Accelerate your Software Development'. It starts out like this: 'You're a software developer, not a technical writer, so your time should be spent developing your applications, not your online Help system. RoboHelp eliminates the drudgery from authoring Help systems by providing an automated solution to develop and generate your Help content ...' |
The good folks of HATT were justifiably incensed that eHelp would so badly bite the hand that feeds them. In the outraged discussion that followed, former members of eHelp's Advisory Board, David Knopf, MJ Plaster and Char-James Tanny, made it clear they had recently resigned. Paula Stern indicated there was one other resignation besides those three, and then herself publicly resigned from the Board in the midst of this current incident.
Following are some of the comments from the HATT list:
|
Hey, thanks for sending this, David! Nice to know the true attitudes of a company--and, especially toward the very users who brought them to where they are now. Despicable! Now, I wouldn't ever consider a RoboHelp product for my upcoming JavaHelp project--or any other project, for that matter. If there's no better alternative (and I think there are), I'd rather roll around in broken glass and hand-code JavaHelp!
"Jo-Ski" |
|
I hope eHelp is reading and taking notes. What a way to turn your user base off from your product...
Bill Swallow |
|
I do not support this marketing decision or these words that callously hurt others. David (Liske), I think you as a developer have done the technical writing community a service by publicizing a letter that eHelp would probably NOT have wanted technical writers to see - and yes, we are their customers, their users and each of us has to now weigh what this letter means in terms of our choice of tools.
Paula Stern |
|
Thanks so much for putting the ad on your web site. This is a truly wonderful example of modern communications at work. You receive a note broadcast to a group of developers, then you in turn broadcast the same letter to a group of technical communicators. Ehelp obviously failed to take into account that their note would passed from one audience to the
other or maybe they didn't care. I guess when you're on a mission for world domination, you forget who you are friends are ... As others have pointed out, the flaw in this ad is that while RH (or any HAT) makes it easier to generate online help, you still have *write* and *organize* the content ... This makes me very angry earthling.
Ron Miller |
|
This e-mail is not only insulting but sneaky and two-faced, knifing its main subscribers in the back and promoting further dissociation between the two disciplines of programming and writing. The company is not only not to be trusted but has done the entire industry a massive disservice. Someone, SOMEONE, should write an article in PC Magazine or a similar mag, about this! Surely one of you lurkers is in that realm -- I encourage you to make this public knowledge.
Suzanne Townsend |
|
This is just the kind of almost monthly assault that infuriates the Help authoring community. RoboHelp is a good product, but when one is constantly assaulted with insult after insult . . . well, the power of the tool starts to gets lost ... Just a couple of months ago, there was the introduction of Professional Services. For those of you who may not be aware, eHelp's Professional Services can now help the client develop content. http://www.ehelp.com/services/ You see, the Help author is no longer part of the equation. THAT is why we resigned from the Advisory Board--because the Help author's position on the food chain is somewhere beneath KRILL! And we are all Help authors--first and foremost! Since we could no longer serve our constituency, why bother? ... When the tools and/or technologies attempt to cut us out of the equation, we have a choice. We can sit by idly and let it happen, or we can make ourselves heard. If you see someone/ something/some tool/some technology endangering your career, make waves. It's up to you.
MJ Plaster |
|
Char, MJ, and all the rest of you... yes, I am a help author and I'm PROUD. I absolutely LOVE what I do, and I'm damned good at it. The developers with whom I work freely admit that they could not write a clear procedure if their lives depended on it. On the other hand, I freely admit I couldn't write a function if my life depended on it. I do not, in any way, consider my job or what I do "drudgery" and I resent the implication that it is such ... Honestly, are any of you
surprised at what eHelp has done? This is just a continuation of the arrogance of this company. This company has alienated many of its consultants and trainers, and now quite a few of their help authors. I am not surprised, but I am appalled at the audacity that this company is yet again showing.
Sue Heim |
|
I expect to include eHelp's business practices among the considerations addressed in my purchase justification (there's a comparison piece adressing the pros and cons of available alternatives). If they have a rep. listening who's having to deal with "management myopia" (sometimes the root cause of such bad-business-practice symptoms, despite an otherwise decent staff), here's a concrete example of their decisions losing them business. (And this decision was made *before* seeing their letter.)
Shauna Iannone |
Of course, it wouldn't be fair if I didn't include an email that didn't agree with the rest of us. Dana is someone I respect, so I'll give no argument to her opinion:
|
Well, I guess I'll slip on the flame retardant suit now, because I'm sure I'm going to need it. Really guys, what's the big deal? I didn't see anything that said "your help author sucks and you can do without her; here's a tool to do a better job than she can". I think we've discussed before that some companies don't necessarily see the value in hiring full-time tech writers, and so the task of developing help could very well be left to the developers. To someone who enjoys programming all day, maybe creating a help file IS drudgery. I know there are a lot of jobs here that I would likely jump off the roof if I had to do for more than a few hours, but the people in those positions enjoy what they do. eHelp is addressing what they see as another market for their product. I doubt there are many developers that can create a help system that will be as useful and well-written as what we tech writers can. However, if that is the only option because your company is too cheap to hire TWs, then the developers might as well know that there's a tool to help them get the job done. Maybe we should use all the energy that this debate takes to make sure that we are seen as invaluable, and yes, maybe even irreplaceable, members of the development team. I'll come back when the flames die down and the smoke clears... Dana Worley (and as most of you know, I don't use a HAT) |
eHelp publicly replied to my original post to the HATT list on April 18th. Their email was signed "Alisa Popolizio and The eHelp Marketing Team". Here's their explanation/apology:
|
From: Vartouhi Galpchian Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 12:43 PM -0700 To: "HATT LIST (E-mail)" <HATT@yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [HATT] Email from eHelp |
|
eHelp sincerely apologizes to the technical writing community for the email that we sent to software developers. We would also like to clear up any misunderstanding. We respect what you do and value your role as a technical writer. We want to assure you that we never meant to imply, nor do we believe, that a technical writer can be replaced by a Help authoring tool. RoboHelp was developed to help technical writers create Help systems, not to replace them. Just as you love what you do, developers love to build software applications. Their main job is not to author Help. However, some companies rely on their software developers to author online Help since they do not have technical writers dedicated to this important job. Our email was meant to communicate to these developers that RoboHelp can assist them with creating online Help, which some developers perceive as a difficult task outside the scope of their normal job. We regret that our message was perceived as insulting to the technical writing community. This was not our intention. Please accept our apology. Sincerely, Alisa Popolizio and The eHelp Marketing Team |
Note that while Alisa Popolizio had signed it, the return address on the email was for a Vartouhi Galpchian.
Following is my own public reply to this email:
|
Alisa, Replies are in-line ... > eHelp sincerely apologizes to the technical writing community for the > email that we sent to software developers. > We would also like to clear up any misunderstanding. > > We respect what you do and value your role as a technical writer. We want > to assure you that we never meant to imply, > nor do we believe, that a technical writer can be replaced by a Help > authoring tool. > RoboHelp was developed to help technical writers create Help systems, not > to replace them. Unfortunately that's not what the copy indicated. Specifically, "RoboHelp eliminates the drudgery from authoring Help systems by providing an automated solution to develop and generate your Help content-in any Help format". Here an automated solution clearly replaces the help author. Whether or not that's what the intent was, that's how it reads. The help community sees this as an insult. There's no way around it. > Just as you love what you do, developers love to build software > applications. > Their main job is not to author Help. However, some companies rely on > their > software developers to author online Help since they do not have > technical writers dedicated to this important job. Our email was meant > to communicate to these > developers that RoboHelp can assist them with creating online Help, which > some developers > perceive as a difficult task outside the scope of their normal job. Again this doesn't mesh with what was posted. Specifically, the word "drudgery". Here a term is used which clearly places the work of the help author below that of the developer. This only promotes the idea that help authors are to be looked down upon by developers. I've said this dozens of times: Very few developers can write a help system in the same manner as a help author. At this point, we still have the lowly help author being replaced by an automated system. > We regret that our message was perceived as insulting to the technical > writing community. This was not our intention. Unfortunately, that's what the result was. This cannot be taken at all lightly by anyone at eHelp. > Please accept our apology. Apologizing to the help community doesn't solve the real problem. The problem is now within the community of developers. Specifically, Software Development magazine's subscribers. I mentioned damage control. Here's what I meant ... What should really happen here is a retraction in the same channel as the original email, admitting that the email insulted the help community and indicating which information was incorrect when passed to the development community. Specifically, a developer or team of developers should *only* use an automated solution if no help author is available. Even then, they should do their best to get one if funding allows. Frankly, there's no replacement for a help author. eHelp marketing has obviously lost track of this fact. eHelp cannot simply sweep this under the rug. Marketing has made an extremely poor error in judgment and needs to own up to it, doing their collective best to both repair it and ensure it never happens again. There's severe damage in the help community that needs to be taken care of immediately. I for one won't ever gloss it over. |
The followups to this on the HATT list are just as interesting as the earlier discussion:
|
As a Help author with more than 17 years' experience, I stand with David Liske's very articulate reply to your attempt at an apology to the Help authoring community. And, I support the demands he makes
therein ... I will be looking into a few, new promising products and technologies that rival what you do. At this point, all I can say is that I hope they out-do you. And, I hope your ridiculous, misguided, numbskull marketing team has learned a lesson.
"Jo-Ski" |
|
As for the marketing apology, their message wasn't PERCEIVED as insulting. It WAS insulting. Worse - it failed to mention the key sentence finally mentioned here: "RoboHelp was developed to help technical writers create Help systems." As long as eHelp continues to attempt to go outside its valuable role as software developers and attempt to conquer every possible associated market (even remotely), it will alienate its users, the bread and butter people and companies that keep you in business.
Paula Stern |
|
The original email was never sent to HATT directly by
eHelp. If you are sincere in your apology, I strongly suggest you listen to David Liske's suggestion and send the apology to the same recipients as your original marketing email. Apologizing to us may seem to be sufficient to you, but we have to work with the developers you originally contacted. An email to them explaining the "folly" would be in very good taste.
Bill Swallow |
Interestingly enough, clothing manufacturer Abercrombie & Fitch has recently shown a similar lack of concern when creating something for public consumption. Clothing has needed to have been pulled in hundreds of stores.
From HATT member Jon Tobey comes more information on eHelp's ridiculous marketing schemes. On April 19th Jon posted the following:
|
Man, I'm smoking. Through a roundabout route at the RH site I ended up. Since I was there I decided to download a white paper. Unlike any other site I've ever been too, this requires filling out a form, and then waiting while they send you the instructions. I didn't think much about this until today, when I got a spam email: "Hi Jon, My name is Brian Fredette and I am your eHelp contact and here to assist you! Feel free to contact me with any questions about RoboHelp @ 1-800-455-5132 x7517 (8:30-5pm PST) PC Magazine gives perfect score 5 for RoboHelp 2002 "RoboHelp Office 2002 is a mature product that no professional help designer should be without". Etc. I KNOW I checked all of the boxes specifying that I was NOT interested in hearing about any offers of any kind. Even before this marketing fiasco, the posts here had convinced me that RH was too buggy, had poor support, and a whacky release/update schedule. If I had stock in this company, I would've sold it long ago. RH, I know you're out there. FIRE the moron(s) running your marketing campaign. BEG the good people using your software to stay loyal. SMARTEN UP about how you do business. And LEAVE ME the heck alone. |
HATT's old pal Walter Rosenfeld has quite an interesting theory on why the original email happened:
|
IMO, of course, e(No)Help would like nothing more than to sell companies on the concept that they don't need TWers or HAers and then - TADA! - come riding in on their white horse with their own little Training and/or Consulting company. I've always said that, IMO, e(No)Help back when it was just BS was a company worthy of protesting against and not supporting. And now that, IMO, it seems that they their design to either outright have you fired and take your job, or make you work for them after you've been fired, I hope that y'all agree. //walter |
I've now posted an entry in the Hot Topics Forum on the Software Developer magazine's web site.
David Knopf, one of HATT's moderators, has this to say about the overall situation:
|
Hi David, I just wanted to send you an off-list thank you for your decision to raise the issue of the e-mail advertisement eHelp recently sent to subscribers of Software Developer magazine. But for your efforts, the Help authoring community might have remained completely unaware of the situation. THANK YOU! I think it's fair to say that the *overwhelming* response on the list has been supportive of your position and not supportive (to put it mildly) of eHelp. I can only assume that the small number of people who consider this a "tempest in a teapot" must simply not be familiar with the history of the company: the misappropriation of your code, the Jackson Dean episode, the Knowlegebase.net episode, the Training program fiasco, the Consulting program fiasco, etc. etc. etc. At some point, I think a history lesson may be in order! How much space do you have available on your site? *bg* Cheers, D. David Knopf / Knopf Online / San Francisco, CA / 415.550.8367 mailto:david@knopf.com / http://www.knopf.com WebWorks and RoboHelp Certified - RoboHelp MVP Member, JavaHelp 2.0 Expert Group Moderator, HATT & wwp-users |
Shortly after receiving this email from David, I received another from a prominent member of HATT. This has caused me to fire another missive into the list:
|
eHelp's HATT monitors, I've received the following link from a very prominent member of this list. If this person wants to reveal themselves, it's up to them. >From http://www.ehelp.com/products/robohelp/demos/vb.asp ... "Without any prior knowledge or experience, you can create great looking, effective online user assistance for all your Visual Basic applications in a minimum amount of time. Just point and click to develop the most up-to-date functionality (context sensitivity, See Also, multimedia...)." This couple of sentences are so much horse-hockey. There is no way anyone, developer or otherwise, can "create great looking, effective online user assistance ... (w)ithout any prior knowledge or experience". A real test of this would pit RoboHelp and a developer who's not a writer against the likes of, say, Paula Stern. It would be no contest whatsoever. Paula would wipe the poor developer off the map. I'm appalled at the audacity of your marketing. Wednesday's email to Software Developer's subscribers obviously isn't the only issue. Apparently your marketing crew slams help authors on a regular basis when targeting developers. I'm honestly beginning to believe what //walter wrote: "IMO, of course, e(No)Help would like nothing more than to sell companies on the concept that they don't need TWers or HAers and then - TADA! - come riding in on their white horse with their own little Training and/or Consulting company." Is this what's going on? The more I think about it, the more I believe it. Telling developers they don't need a help author whatsoever, that RoboHelp can do all the work for them, degrades the profession help authors are so proud of and is, to an certain degree, false advertising. As I said before, and was agreed with by members of this list, at least honestly tell developers it's a secondary solution *only* if a help author or the funding to hire one is unavailable. Even then, the possibility of the resulting help being effective is greatly reduced. This mess you've created needs to be straightened out. It seems to be a larger mess than before. And the structure of your overall strategy is in question. We need answers here, not silence. These things need to be corrected. If you have any integrity at all, you'll start being honest with this community and certainly not degrade it any longer. David |
Paul O'Rear, former HATT member and former Microsoft Help MVP, agreed with what I wrote in my reply to Alisa, re:
| "What should really happen here is a retraction in the same channel as the original email, admitting that the email insulted the help community and indicating which information was incorrect when passed to the development community. Specifically, a developer or team of developers should *only* use an automated solution if no help author is available. Even then, they should do their best to get one if funding allows." |
Paul's personal opinion (not that of his employer, Microsoft Corporation) is this:
| I agree with this ... let's hope for the best. |
On Sunday, April 21, I posted the following to HATT:
|
Folks, I've decided I like the idea of MJ nominating me as "Industry Watch Pitbull". Let's begin to take care of these problems as officially as possible ... After loads of serious consideration concerning Jackson Dean, the copyright infringements, the overly aggressive marketing, and particularly the false and misleading advertising, I've filed a complaint about eHelp Corporation with the Federal Trade Commission (https://rn.ftc.gov/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01). I'm urging anyone in the U.S. who has anything to say about this to do the same. You folks know who you are, and should speak up about what all of us have endured over the past few years. I thank anyone who joins me in this effort. I also thank anyone else for just putting up with this whole mess. David =================================== Success! Complaint Accepted. Thank you for your input. First Name: David Last Name: Liske Age Range: 40 - 49 Street Address: xxxx xxxxxxx xxx City: Tipton State or Canadian Province: Michigan Country: UNITED STATES Zip Code or Postal Code: 49287 E-Mail Address: dliske@umich.edu Home Phone: (xxx)xxx-xxxx Work Phone: (xxx)xxx-xxxx Subject of Your Complaint: Computers/Internet Services Name of Company You Are Complaining About: eHelp Corporation Street Address: 10590 W. Ocean Air Drive City: San Diego State or Canadian Province: California Country: UNITED STATES Zip Code or Postal Code: 92130 Company Web Site: http://www.ehelp.com Company E-Mail Address: questions@ehelp.com Phone Number: (800)358-9370 How Did the Company Initially Contact You?: Internet/E-mail Explain Your Problem: I've posted complete and information about issues with eHelp Corporation at http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/incident_4_02.htm. More information will be posted there as it comes in. =================================== |
On Monday, April 22nd, Paul Hanson posted a couple of interesting links to HATT:
|
<posted from my personal account> While looking around for .hlp files to download, I came across this site: http://www.windows-help-files.com which has this blurb on its main page: <snip> Write a Help System in a Night, this guy did...! One developer, new to Help Systems, downloaded a copy of DotHLP, wrote and finished his help file, then integrated it into his application, all on the same night! Needless to say, he registered with us the next day. Your experience will be similar and we'll give you a 60 day money back guarantee to back it. <snip> I'm downloading their product to try it out. $169 for the WinHelp-only product. Paul |
|
<posted from my personal account> http://www.thefreecountry.com/developercity/helpauthoring.shtml Free Help Authoring, Manual and Documentation Writing Tools Dreading the drudgery of writing your help files and online documentation for your software? Here are some tools that make it easier for you, by generating the necessary project files (such as WinHelp project files), manual pages (such as Unix man pages), RTF files, HTML files, include files, WinHelp .HLP files, HTMLHelp .CHM files, README files, etc, leaving you to concentrate on the task of writing the words. Included are also some tools and libraries that allow you to supercharge or modify your help systems such as to add Tip of the Day, tabs (for tabbed a help system), etc. <snip> Paul |
There is a distinct contrast here, which I laid out in my reply to Paul:
|
Hi Paul, Excellent links. Companies and groups such as these may have a bit of false advertising on their sites. However, there are major differences between these companies and eHelp: 1) These companies haven't created a consulting arm (http://www.ehelp.com/services/consulting.asp), which takes business away from members of this community, and does the same with members and now-former members of their own Advisory Board. 2) They don't have an episode similar that of Jackson Dean (http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/jacksondean.htm), which we honestly don't know the real truth about. Was someone disciplined for it, or was it actually part of the corporate machinery? We don't know for sure. 3) They don't plagiarize code from other sites and claim it as their own (http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/code_hijacking.htm). In fact, the sister product to the one you listed below, DotCHM, is the only product my HTML Help class module is authorized to ship with. They have permission to ship it, all the copyrights are intact, and no money was exchanged. 4) They don't do a full copy-and-paste of code from other copyrighted web sites (http://www.knowledgebase.net/copyright/). 5) They don't bypass their own opt-out mechanisms in favor of a chance for new advertising (http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/incident_4_02.htm#jon_tobeys_beef ). Very recently, we've seen WexTech sell-off their help authoring tool and also seen ForeHelp do the same thing and completely close up shop. This leaves a large void in the high-end help authoring tool development arena. I'm hoping ComponentOne can fill this gap since partially integrating these products together. Part of the question that needs to be answered is why all this occured. All of what eHelp has done in the past few years smacks of monopolistic practices and strong-arm advertising tactics. Did this type of activity directly lead to what happened with WexTech and ForeHelp? How much do we really know about what eHelp does? It's the activities we don't yet know about, and those we don't have real answers to, that are seriously worrisome. David |
After receiving a few more emails, I took another look at what I'd written above and sent the following to HATT:
|
Folks, I've been asked by a few of you to post a boilerplate to get started with for those in the U.S. who want to add their own complaint to the FTC using https://rn.ftc.gov/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01. It would seem a modified form of my post to Paul would work well: ==================================================== 1) eHelp Corporation has used legal force to suppress unfavorable informal reviews of their products. Partial details are available in a copy of a post to the WinHlp-L email list from Sharon Burton-Hardin toward the middle of http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/jacksondean.htm. 2) In 1999, an employee of eHelp Corporation (at that time named Blue-Sky Corporation), using a pseudonym of "Jackson Dean", posted a derogatory review of a competitor's product to the now-defunct WinHlp-L email list. Details of this incident are available at http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/jacksondean.htm. Full facts behind this matter have never been revealed. 3) In 1999, an employee of eHelp Corporation posted a Visual Basic code sample to the now defunct WinHlp-L email discussion list, indicating he had written the code himself. It soon became apparent this code had been plagiarized from http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter. Details of this incident are available at http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/code_hijacking.htm 4) The eHelp Corporation web site has copied working code directly from another copyrighted web site. Details are available at http://www.knowledgebase.net/copyright/. 5) eHelp currently regularly bypasses their own opt-out mechanisms in favor of a chance for new advertising. Details are available at http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/incident_4_02.htm#jon_tobeys_beef. 6) eHelp Corporation has recently created a consulting arm (http://www.ehelp.com/services/consulting.asp) which takes business away from help authoring consultants, including now-former members of their own Advisory Board. Very recently, we've seen WexTech (http://www.wextech.com) and ForeFront (http://www.ff.com, which now redirects to http://www.componentone.com/ffhelp/ff.htm) sell-off their respective help authoring tools to ComponentOne (http://www.componentone.com). Of concern is whether the above activity directly lead to what happened with WexTech and ForeHelp. ==================================================== The form on the FTC site for lodging complaints online indicates "Explain Your Problem: (Please limit your complaint to 2000 characters.)" What I've written above is just under this limit. Make sure to modify what I've written as you see fit (they sholuld receive specific complaints from each individual, not all the same thing), but be sure to use the Word Count dialog in Word to also count the number of characters before submitting your specific complaint. David |
Developers are now beginning to speak up after reading this page. From the OffRamp in the VBExplorer forums comes a message from "Soren", one of the forum moderators:
| That is quite a story. Incredible that a company can be that dumb on so many levels. Almost enough material to make a book on how not to run Support and Marketing departments. |
On Monday April 22nd, the following email was posted to the HATT list:
|
Hi all, You'll never guess what arrived in my Inbox today right on the heels of the eHelp post to HATT last week. I'm on an eWEEK mailing list, and I received the very same marketing email that David Liske received last week. Best I can tell, the language is identical. David Liske said this a.m.: >>At issue here is that, while they continue to "apologize" for things, the problems continue to occur. I'm just guessing that eWEEK has quite a little mailing list. Best Regards, MJ Plaster World Wide WInnovations, Inc. http://www.wwwinnovations.com/ |
MJ emailed me privately regarding the name of the graphic which reads "". She's wondering why it's named RHCrucial.gif:
<div align="center"><img src="http://www.ehelp.com/images/newsletter/april2002/RHCrucial.gif" width="558" height="340" usemap="#Map2Map" border="0">
Why would this graphic be so crucial?
My public reply to MJ's email to HATT:
|
Folks, MJ's forwarded what she received to me. It's the exact same ad I received last Wednesday, but this time it targeted a different group. So much for eHelp's so-called apology ... eHelp, you definitely have some explaining to do now. You just shot yourself in the integrity ... again. David |
Following is the initial email response from the Federal Trade Commission
|
Thank you for visiting the FTC's web page and for using our NEW electronic Talk To Us form. Here's what happened to your information after you sent it to us: One of our consumer counselors reviewed the information you sent us. If it was related to the FTC's law enforcement responsibilities, we entered it into our shared law enforcement data system. We share this data system with law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and Canada. Attached is your electronic response, which includes your reference number. Any enclosures can be found at WWW.FTC.GOV under the News Releases, Publications, Speeches option. Information from consumers like you helps Federal, State and Local authorities investigate possible illegal practices and enforce our laws. Someone from the Federal Trade Commission or another law enforcement agency may contact you if they need additional information to help them in an investigation. Thank you for using our Talk To Us form, and please continue to use the FTC's web page, www.ftc.gov, to get free information to help you avoid costly consumer problems. |
|
April 23, 2002 David Liske xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xx xxxxx Re: FTC Ref. No. 1929159 Dear David Liske: Thank you for recent correspondence. The Federal Trade Commission acts in the public interest to stop business practices that violate the laws it enforces. Letters from consumers and businesses are very important to the work of the Commission. They are often the first indication of a problem in the marketplace and may provide the initial evidence to begin an investigation. The Commission does not resolve individual complaints. The Commission can, however, act when it sees a pattern of possible violations developing. The information you have provided will be recorded in our complaint retention system. This computerized system enables us to identify questionable business practices that are generating numerous complaints and may be in violation of the law. Thank you for providing information that may be used to develop or support Commission enforcement initiatives. Sincerely, Consumer Response Center |
On April 24, the HATT list heard from Marylin Stompler, eHelp Corporation's Vice President of Marketing:
|
Last week, using an email list rented from Software Development, eHelp sent an email to software developers that members of the technical writing community felt was insulting. The apology we sent last week was sincere. We never meant to imply, nor do we believe, that a technical writer can be replaced by a Help authoring tool. Yesterday, unfortunately, another copy of the same email was sent through the eWEEK email list. I would like to explain what happened. At the beginning of the month, we provided the same email content to several third-party vendors that rent email lists, including eWEEK and Software Development. It was our understanding that all emails, including the one from eWEEK, were sent last week. Unfortunately, the email from eWEEK was delayed by eWEEK and was sent yesterday. Please accept our deepest apology and feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Marylin Stompler Vice President of Marketing eHelp Corporation 10590 West Ocean Air Drive San Diego, CA 92130 (Tel) 858-847-7492 www.ehelp.com mstompler@ehelp.com |
Following are some of the replies to, and discussion of, this email:
|
Marylin---talk is cheap. Why don't you use that same rented email list to send each of them the apology that you are sending to us. You've talked the talk. We're still waiting, and so far, unsuccessfully, for you to walk the walk. ===== John Posada, Senior Technical Writer "I'm not flying...I'm falling with style" ---Buzz Lightyear ----------------------------------------------- |
|
Ya know, I was wondering if it wasn't something like that... ------------------------------------ John Cook, Technical Writer Technical Information Services Camtronics Medical Systems
|
|
Marylin, That makes sense. Thank you for clarifying. Now, the question we have yet to hear an answer on is this: Will a retraction be posted to those email lists in regards to the email's implication? Whether or not the implication was intentional doesn't set aside the fact it existed in the email. David Liske -- Microsoft Help MVP since 1999 http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter --
|
|
Marylin, While your apology to this group is noted, when do you plan to issue an apology through the Software Development and eWeek email lists? Mike Espinosa
|
|
How many times do we need eHelp to say they are sorry? Dennis Dennis Sarris Quest Software Senior Technical Writer Member, RoboHelp Advisory Board |
|
Hi Dennis, First a bit of clarification ... eHelp has been apologizing for various actions since 1998 (http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/incident_4_02.htm). It's about time they stopped doing things they need to apologize for. It's the same as with kids ... an 8-year-old may apologize for hitting his brother today, and then tomorrow punch him again for no reason in particular. The child needs to stop, not continue to apologize. To further clarify, the email to the other lists wouldn't need to apologize but rather retract. eHelp needs to tighten up every bit of contact they have with the public so they never have to apologize again. Four years of apologies is way too long. David |
|
Marilyn, my 2 cents. The help development community (not the technical writing community) did not "feel" it was insulting. We "thought" it was insulting. Feelings are like Chinese food - in 20 minutes, they may change to something else. We thought - and still think - it was sleazy of your company to make derogatory comments about the very group that provides all of you with a job because we purchase and recommend your products. In my opinion. eHelp's disdainful attitude to the community who provide you all with jobs was... well, not surprising. Sad, but perfectly normal for eHelp. In my opinion. Also, we are technical writers in the general sense but we are most importantly HELP AUTHORS or HELP DEVELOPERS. Technical writers may or may not develop help. Help developers do technical writing AND develop help. It is a specialized skillset that includes technical writing AND programming AND testing AND more. So you want to repair the damage made in your primary purchasing community. OK. One more apology after years of not nice behavior, in my opinion, is probably not enough. I am not sure what may make it OK again for others - you cannot make it nice again for me, the threatened lawsuit pretty much killed my interest in your company - but I think you should be asking the help development community what your company can do to make it better. An apology is nice (meaningless, but nice), but if your company is really sorry, there needs to be repair to make things better. Otherwise, it is just air, or, in this case, electrons. All of this is simply my opinion. And since crankiness is rampant at my place today (oh, gee, is everyone just a little tired?), it also may mean nothing. sharon Sharon Burton-Hardin CEO, Anthrobytes Consulting 909-369-8590 www.anthrobytes.com |
|
Hi Marilyn: I appreciate the sentiment of the apology, but I have to wonder why you wrote and approved the copy in the first place. At the very least, it diminishes what thousands of people to do for a living and at the very most, it's just a big lie. No one, and I mean no one can do what that ad suggests. Your software does make it *easier* to create online help in several formats, but in no way, shape or form; does it supply the juice to write help text, to organize that text in a meaningful way or to generate a meaningful keyword index or a well-organized table of contents. I will grant you that it facilitates all of these tasks, but there is not a chance that it automates it and that is precisely what your ad said that you can do with RoboHelp. Perhaps you should send out another bulk email to the same developers simply admitting that what you said was not true and that in order to get the job done, you need to hire a good technical writer. Maybe then you will have made up for this fiasco. Until then, while I appreciate the apology, it doesn't really take back the fact that the copy was written, approved and mailed by folks in your department, and until you find a way to make it right, a simply apology is not going to make this go away. Sincerely, Ron Miller Freelance Technical Writing Since 1988 |
|
Until they one day, applogize, and the next, not repeat the problem. I don't buy the explaination. If they really felt the way they say, it would not have happended again...it might not have been easy or cheap to stop it at that point, but nobody said that being honorable was easy or cheap. Doing the honorable thing is always difficult. --- Dennis Sarris <dennis.sarris@quest.com> wrote: > How many times do we need eHelp to say they are sorry?
|
|
Three, no four! (No one *ever* expects the Spanish Inquisition!) [Disclaimer - this is from a Monty Python bit. Humor, arr.] ------------------------------------ John Cook, Technical Writer Technical Information Services Camtronics Medical Systems
|
|
Until they say and MEAN it!!!!! And ACT on it!!!!! Jo Byrd Dennis Sarris wrote: >How many times do we need eHelp to say they are sorry? > >Dennis |
|
David, I'm not so sure I agree with an apology. (Honestly, I cannot see eHelp apologizing to the development community!) But I *would* like to see a retraction. Or something that explicitly states that eHelp never meant to imply that the work of their primary user is "drudgery" and also that the tool is not intended to actually replace a learned help author. What I'd like to see is something that states what I'd posted before: if the developer works for a small company or a company that has recently downsized, and there are no help authors or technical writers available to create user assistance, then the eHelp products can assist in providing an online help system. The online help system WILL REQUIRE authoring -- the product does NOT AUTOMATICALLY create the text required for the help files. And the intent is to provide user assistance where none might be if the staffing levels don't provide for a help author. Oh, and this retraction (or whatever) needs to be sent to those same "several" mailing lists. Talk is really cheap. Actions really DO speak louder 'n words. ...sue [Heim] |
|
Ummm ... Sue, I did say "retraction". Take another look. :-) David
|
|
-----Original Message----- From: sue_heim [mailto:sue_heim@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:40 AM To: HATT@yahoogroups.com Subject: [HATT] Re: Response from eHelp about Guess WHAT I received today? <snip> But I *would* like to see a retraction. <snip some more> The online help system WILL REQUIRE authoring -- the product does NOT AUTOMATICALLY create the text required for the help files. </snip> You do realize you're asking them to correct a piece of marketing/advertising fluff by telling people the truth, don't you? If every company that exaggerated the abilities or effects of a product was required to retract that advertisement, we would never finish reading them all (What? You mean I won't get any woman I want if I drink the right beer?). While I understand that we've all been slighted, I think we're underestimating the developers whom this was aimed at. They know it's advertising; if they didn't already think they could write help, this isn't going to make them think they can. Bob "I think it's about forgiveness" -- Don Henley
|
|
Hi Rob, > You do realize you're asking them to correct a piece of > marketing/advertising fluff by telling people the truth, don't you? If > every company that exaggerated the abilities or effects of a product was > required to retract that advertisement, we would never finish reading > them all (What? You mean I won't get any woman I want if I drink the > right beer?). There's a difference between "fluff" and misleading or false advertising ... making claims about a product that is untrue. The ads showing women in bars isn't really making a false statement about the product's features. > While I understand that we've all been slighted, I think we're > underestimating the developers whom this was aimed at. They know it's > advertising; if they didn't already think they could write help, this > isn't going to make them think they can. A large portion of developers have never written a help file. If they're looking around at ads, this misleading advertising will pull them towards RoboHELP before they have a chance to look at anything with non-misleading advertising. David
|
|
Marylin, In addition to the concern that you are apologizing to the wrong group (our collective self-esteem is at a fairly high level), you suggest that there may be more lists to whom these emails went out to. Serious question: Do you have any idea how many people got this missive? It remains clear to me that what eHelp needs to do is rent the same lists you rented this month, and tell this batch of people that you (unintentionally) helped to reinforce a prejudice that some developers may have about technical writers/help developers as glorified clericals. Tell folks that RoboHelp can ease the burden of documentation *when there's no other option*, and that the tool will still be there when the company can hire a professional. Some of us would prefer the sackcloth-and-ashes approach, but I'd rather you fix the problem. Sincerely, Mike McCallister Senior Documentation Specialist Ontrack Data International
|
Of course, there's still dissension amongst the members of HATT now and then:
|
Hi Aline, > Granted we did not like their marketing approach. And yes, they probably > should have hired a tech writer to write their add. But really... is it > worth getting an ulcer over it? As eHelp Corporation has done quite a few things over the past four years or so, some of them likely illegal, the whole of it is certainly worth looking into. I'll leave that up to the FTC and provide that group with the info they need to see. > What bugged me the most is not the "drudgery" part. But, I got thinking > about the companies having new managers or other. They haven't got a clue > about the value of a tech writer, help developer, pdf files, and > everything else that comes with the package. ,They would probably think: > we don't need tech writers, the programmers can produce the help files. > Yes, but can they write? My answer is: Nope, don't think so. They were > hired as coders. And guess what... nothing bugs a programmer more than > having to document his code, let alone produce a manual/help file. This is likely true for the majority of programmers. I'm an odd duck in this area, as is Rob Chandler, Don Lammers, and a few others who are known here. > In the beginning, the programmer will do it by force, but in then end, > they will say: "Look, you want me to code and spit out the new product, > or do you want me to become a writer and miss my deadlines?" > > There is definitely NO comparison, but new managers (who don't know dick) > must learn that. And it won't take long. Yes, new managers must definitely learn this. However, eHelp's recent advertisements, directed at those same developers and managers, is misleading in this regard. > I've known a number of you for a long time, and the way I see it: we made > RoboHelp what it is TODAY. We tested and debugged a number of versions to > death. We've had "desirable" improvements and all. Personally, I've been > using it since V. 2.4, and they've come a long way. Are we wiling to miss > our deadlines to learn a new product just to spite eHelp??? I don't see them going out of business over this. To be honest, I only want the problems to stop, not for them to shut down. If they were to close up shop completely, that would leave ComponentOne as the only high-end help authoring tool developer left, and, as far as I know, no one really knows for sure what ComponentOne's support department is capable of yet in supporting their users. This wouldn't make any sense whatsoever. > Based on eHelp's response, I feel confident that they will no longer make > similar misplaced claims. They have apologized to us and maybe we should > graciously accept it in the spirit in which it was offered. Unfortunately, this doesn't wash any longer. There have been four years of apologies over some things, and there were also other things which happened which eHelp has only glossed over. I want them to stop doing things they need to apologize for. And I definitely want any possibly-illegal activities to be looked into. > Phew... OK, so there you have it. > > Aline (from Up North Canada) [Aline Damphousse] Kewl. My favorite band is, of course, those three guys from Toronto. It's good to see that I'll finally be able buy a new CD from them in a few weeks after 5 long years of waiting. I do understand why he had to take such a lengthy break. To loose both his wife and daughter within a year of each other must have broken his heart completely. David |
After a few more hours of discussion, it became necessary to further clarify my position:
|
Hi Mike, Just for the record, I'm not at all bashing the product or the people behind it. I've used RoboHelp twice overall and each time I was quite happy with the results. Neither am I bashing the people behind the product. They'd have to be decent folks in order to produce a product that was quite good when I was using it (I can't honestly speak about the current version). At issue is now 5 years of the corporate attitude the help community has endured (I was recently sent pages indicating they copyrighted the term WinHelp in 1997). There are frequent discussions on this list, as there were on WinHlp-L, about how no one at all appreciates eHelp's marketing practices, the blatant copyright infringements, and many other problems that have occured since 1997. Let me clarify a bit more: This is nothing like what the remaining nine states are trying to do to Microsoft. I have no desire to stop the production of RoboHelp or have the product changed. Nor do I want eHelp Corporation to go out of business. All I want to see is the nonsense stopped once and for all. Frankly, I'd love to see eHelp become a healthy corporation with no skeletons in the closet. If they'd put more of their energy toward fixing bugs than in doing the things I've listed at http://www.mvps.org/htmlhelpcenter/ehelp/incident_4_02.htm, this community will function much better overall. David On Friday, April 26, 2002, at 09:30 AM, Mike.D.Wiethorn@mortgage.wellsFargo.COM wrote: > Thank you, David, for posting your thoughts. While an individual is > certainly free to be displeased with a product, it is not necessary to > rant > ceaselessly about how the people who produce the product are "evil" or > terrible human beings in general. It's just like the borderline > personalities who endlessly bash Bill Gates. > > Not only is such behavior unproductive, but it shows that the person > doing > the bashing is mentally unstable. > > We are in the midst of a global war and recession...let's keep some > perspective, folks. > |
eHelp has now made an attempt to strong-arm the discussion going on within HATT:
|
Dear List Members, We were kind of thinking that the whole eHelp thread was about to die down. Imagine our surprise when we received the following complaint, which eHelp has apparently filed with Yahoo! Groups. (At least they haven't reported us to the FTC!) Essentially, eHelp has asked Yahoo! to intervene to stop what they call "the public bashing of eHelp Corporation." (See below for the full text of eHelp's complaint.) It alarms us that eHelp would ask Yahoo! to restrict the freedom of HATT members to engage in free and open discussion of the industry in which we all work. While the last thing we want to do is perpetuate what has already been a very lengthy discussion, we thought it appropriate to keep the list members informed about the steps eHelp is taking behind the scenes while posting apologies publicly. -- HATT Moderators (hatt-owner@yahoogroups.com) -----Original Message----- From: Sherri Jackson [mailto:SJackson@ehelp.com] Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 12:49 PM To: 'hatt-owner@yahoogroups.com' Subject: Public bashing on Yahoo! Groups HATT I have a concern regarding the recent public bashing of eHelp Corporation on the HATT list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HATT/). Therefore, I am requesting that someone from Yahoo! Groups review these recent postings on the HATT list and take appropriate action to stop the public bashing of eHelp Corporation. Pursuant to the email that individuals receive when they sign up (Subject: File - poststoavoid.txt) it specifically states: "Posts to avoid: ... Public bashing/flaming/attacks (even in defense, don't do it - the moderators will go after those doing the attacking). If you absolutely *have* to ping someone, do it off-list. Even if someone is pinging you on-list, be the bigger person and take it off-list, or contact the moderators with your gripe..." On 4/17/2002 - the public bashing of eHelp Corporation began with a posting from David Liske (29039) Subject "Email from eHelp." As a result of the initial posting, approximately 123 responses have been made and most of these Reponses have been public bashing of eHelp. In addition, to this original posting, there have been 8 other email threads with further responses and bashing: * Subject: Apology - approximately 7 responses * Subject: What is up with your marketing - approximately 4 responses * Subject: A different perspective - 4 approximately responses * Subject: Guess what I received today - approximately 30 responses As a result of this initial posting, there have been approximately 168 responses - the majority being public bashing of eHelp. Furthermore, the moderators which include: David Knopf; Don Lammers; Paul O'Rear; and Paula Stern, have taken absolutely NO action against any of these postings which goes directly against Yahoo! Groups policy to avoid public bashing. In addition to these moderators taken no action to stop this public bashing, some of them have taken part in this public bashing through several postings of their own! When individuals sign up for this specific HATT group, they receive an email regarding "Participating in the HATT Group." In this email, it specifically states: "This group is 'lightly moderated.' That means the list moderators are here to help members with questions, resolve subscription-related problems, and deal swiftly with advertising, spam, and hostile content sent to the list..." It is very clear by all these recent postings that the above 4 moderators are not swiftly dealing with hostile content and in fact some of them are actively participating in it!! I am requesting that someone from Yahoo! Groups review these recent postings on the HATT list and take appropriate action to stop the public bashing of eHelp Corporation. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. I look forward to your quick response to this matter. Kind Regards, Sherri Jackson, on behalf of eHelp Corporation 858-847-7526 |
At this point, even those members of HATT who were on the fence became tired of eHelp's antics, including Dana Worley (mentioned above):
| Well, at least we now know what the marketing dept is doing with their real time spent at work. While feigning apologies over what is obviously a screw up by marketing more than once, they're monitoring the HATT list to see who is saying what. Gee, and to think, some of us actually thought that e(no)help was monitoring this list to make the software better. I for one was all set to let this drop, haven't participated in the discussion about ehelp for the most part. Unfortunately, ehelp just shows its true colors over and over again. Ho hum, they like us, they really like us. No, wait, they want to squelch us. [Sanjay] |
| Heck, what's 123 emails compared with the number that ehelp sent out in the first place - with defamatory effects for 1000s of Technical Authors! And liberally pouring salt in the wound by fostering those kinds of attitude - especially for those of us who've ever worked in an environment where they've prevailed. My opinion only. [Anna Croft]
|
| Moderators, THANK YOU for doing your job in keeping this list fair by "outing" eHelp for sneaking behind the lines in an attempt to stifle our protests. I think Sherri Jackson just dug a grave about ten feet deeper than the six she was already in. This is TOTALLY underhanded and uncalled for. Why can't these people listen to reason and listen to the community, since it's MANY of us LONG-TIME RoboHelp users talking?! I am getting sicker and sicker of eHelp's actions on this whole matter. Is that "bashing"? --Suzanne [Townsend] RoboHELP user since version 3.0
|
| I've been pretty much on the fence with this whole eHelp issue--actually, have been on eHelp's side, wondering what the big deal was. I have seen the eHelp side of things, think the e-mail marketing to programmers is minor stuff, and expected that this tempest in a teacup would soon be over--with eHelp really not taking any hits at all in terms of who uses RoboHelp. And, while I appreciate eHelp's right to ask the moderators to step in, I would be severely disappointed to learn eHelp went to Yahoo directly. You see, nothing that has been discussed here is untrue. Nothing in these discussions is outrageous. And, if eHelp perceives a bad situation, they are in an excellent position to fix things and swing opinion their way. Heck, if it weren't for eHelp's response and untimely second submission of the e-mail in question, this whole thing would have been over by now. So, I _do_ want to know whether eHelp has gone to Yahoo directly to stifle this speach and, certainly, want to know if eHelp brings out the lawyers. For, I would not tolerate well such abuses of our community and my personal sense of fair play. Until I learn for certain that eHelp has gone directly to Yahoo and/or has threatened suits, I'll reserve my rage and sit atop the fence carefully studying the LaJolla side of things. eHelp should also be aware that I am certainly not the only person who has been on their side so far and who would be pushed radically against them should eHelp mis-play this one and bring in the thugs and goons. eHelp should realise that talking out the other side of its corporate face--offering false apologies while continuing the practice and seeking to squash discussion--is not the best route. Sean [Brierley] |
| It gets interesting again just when I thought it was over and done with. This keeps up, I'll have to start having my buttered popcorn administered by IV-drip... One thing's for sure - (in my opinion, heh), the longer this spat goes (and the more eHelp apologies with the left hand and attacks with the right), the better the chances are that this thing gets Slashdotted (anyone remember Bernie Schifman?). If *that* happens, a bad day in the ole' PR department could well become an absolute *nightmare*. At some point in time, one would think that eHelp would just let this die. After all, the audience here, in the confines of the HATT, is comparatively miniscule. If this exchange becomes a story and squirts out, the audience could well number in the millions. Never underestimate the power of public opinion: "If we're wrong, we go to jail---peacefully, quietly, we'll enjoy it! But if I'm right, and we can stop this thing -- Lenny, you will have saved the lives of *millions* of registered voters..." ------------------------------------ John Cook, Technical Writer Technical Information Services Camtronics Medical Systems ------------------------------------
|
| As one who had appealed for people to lighten up on the anti-eHelp thread, I would like to say that I was totally appalled and amazed by Sherri Jackson's request. The problem with eHelp's marketing seems to be not simply that it allows the company to be perceived as arrogant and greedy, but that it is just plain stupid and self-defeating. What kind of public relations courses are these people taking? All they had to do was apologize and shut up for awhile and things would have gone back to normal, at least as far as list discussion was concerned. Instead, they had to spit into the wind again. What are they going to do next, write to our employers and threaten to sue them? Kudos to the HATT moderators for putting things in the proper perspective. Well, as far as I'm concerned you can all bash away to your hearts' content (though the thread still gets boring after a while). Walter Crockett |
| Ms. Jackson, Since you have been keeping track of the discussions that have been taking place on the HATT list, you might want to look back and see that I have, for the most part, abstained from participating. In fact, the only email I have contributed stated that, in my opinion, eHelp was only pursuing a different market niche and not suggesting that help authors are no longer valuable. However, with your recent email to the HATT list owners, and your supposed contact with the Yahoo Groups, it is my opinion that eHelp has acted indiscreetly and without regard for HATT list members. I am disappointed with how eHelp has chosen to handle this situation. Instead of trying to resolve the issues with the Help Authoring Community -- whether real or perceived -- eHelp has chosen to further alienate that community by trying to stifle their collective voice. In my opinion, time might have been better spent looking for solutions, rather than compiling statistics and sending contesting emails. As you may have noted from my original email, I currently code my WinHelp projects by hand. So far, I have not found a need to invest in a Help Authoring Tool. At some point, this may change. I will certainly take this whole incident into consideration when making a purchasing decision. I suspect I may not be the only one who has watched objectively and reached the same conclusion. Regards, Dana Worley *** The above information is my opinion only. It in no way reflects the opinion of other individuals or the company by which I am employed. *** |
| Ms. Jackson: Dana stated my thoughts very well. In the matter of the marketing e-mail that started this thread, as my previous posts show, I have been understanding of eHelp's position and not understood the expectations of some list members. Unlike Dana, I am probably not going to be affected by this thread and your actions in terms of using RoboHelp; I gave up RoboHelp years ago, in part because of the spam and constant barrage of marketing literature that eHelp sent by e-mail, mail, and telephone. As an aside, I certainly find it funny that you complain about a volume of e-mail that is magnitudes smaller . . .. However, I am very disappointed with the way you seem to be handling this situation. If it were me, I'd have left the issue alone; it would have ended by now. Alternatively, I'd either defend the marketing e-mail (as I said, it seemed okay to me) or apologize in an appropriate and meaningful way. Those approaches would have been honest. However, it seems eHelp has chosen to simultaneously apologize and attack the community, by attempting to squash what is fair discussion. Such perceived underhandedness is not a trait I value or condone. I recommend you choose a path, be it silence, defending the original e-mail, or an apology. I recommend you make that path an honest, sincere, and open one. In the interim, I beseech the moderators to let this honest and open discussion continue. Now that this issue seems to be headed down the path of a corporation stifling our community, I am interested in more openness and communication. I would also write a check to assist in any legal defense of the community and moderators, and actively solicit funds, if such an issue should arise. Sincerely, Sean Brierley |
| At 07:27 PM 4/26/2002 +0000, you wrote: >Can we get off the almost completely irrelevant rant, please? Pretty >please? I understand how frustrating it can be to have a newsgroup.mailing list suddenly overrun with a conversation you don't give a crap about. And, yeah, saying "hit delete" isn't very comforting either. I will ask that this conversation not be stifled though -- I respect the fact that you don't want to hear about it, but I (and it sounds like several others) are finding value in it. So please just bear with us for a bit more. Thanks. :) I certainly want to be informed about some of the fun interactions I can expect to be involved with should I choose a certain piece of software. I know I'm not going to use it right now, but you never know what's going to happen down the line. As this bizarre story unfolds, I for one know what software I probably won't be choosing, should I be asked to choose one now.... I mean, I didn't find the original email that disrespectful, myself. I understand some other people did, and that's fine. What I do find scary is the way eHelp is behaving, and I don't think I want to be associated with a company that behaves this way. Naturally, everything I post is my opinion and my opinion only, and in no way reflects how anyone else feels about anything, including my employer. -Katie [Kearns] |
The question of whether other areas of the help authoring community knew about what was going on also came up:
| Has anyone shared what is going on here w/other lists? //walter
|
| The STC Lone Writer SIG is following along, and someone there just reported that the
Authorware list is as well (and posted David's site). Mike McCallister
|
| IMO, techwrl's list owner is not aware of the whole thing, or he wouldn't leave an ad for notA-DnorFnorGnorJ-Z at the bottom of each post. Or he or the list is bound with some contract. Gilles Cassin |
A message on the Authorware list brings out another apparent aspect of eHelp's marketing practices:
| Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:36:55 -0500 Reply-To: Authorware Professional <AWARE@LISTSERV.CC.KULEUVEN.AC.BE> Sender: Authorware Professional <AWARE@LISTSERV.CC.KULEUVEN.AC.BE> From: Carrie Zinck <carrie@MCCOYMYERS.COM> Subject: Re: Product Comparison Content-Type: text/plain I am SO bookmarking this and citing it the next time I have to call my oh-so
favorite company. |
I'm sure this saga will continue ...
