|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I agree. When the subject of publication was first suggested to me by TASC
I made essentially the same points you are making. My study was undertaken
primarily for my OWN needs in evaluating the feeds available to ME and I
said that, as a reader of SC, I would expect something considerably more
comprehensive - coverage of more vendors as well as evaluation of the
factors you have mentioned. I offered to expand the comprehensiveness of my
study if they could provide assistance, primarily in the form of data
samples from subscribers to these other vendors and from other locales.
My own principal objective has been and continues to be the quality and
practicality of the Internet-based feed, ESignal, and selection of an
alternative if ESignal is not acceptable to me.
Regards,
Carroll Slemaker
----- Original Message -----
From: Cash <cashc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <Omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 1999 4:46 AM
Subject: Re: TASC Article - Performance of Feeds
> While I wholeheartedly endorse and applaud your effort, and 100% agree
that
> the results be published, potential loss of advertising revenue isn't the
only
> reason that a publication might not publish your results, there is more.
>
> :Let me ask you the following questions: (these only relate to the
internet
> feeds): Did you do the test from many representative parts of the country?
> Just because you can get slow performance in LA, you might still get great
> performance in NYC or even San Diego. Depends on where their server
> farms are located.
>
> Did you use a number of ISP's in each location? If you didn't use at
least the
> top 5-10 ISPs in various locations, you can't determine if poor
performance
> may be ISP based.
>
> In evaluating ISPs a few years ago, a study was put out that got hammered,
> because the testing was not representative enough. This may also be on
the
> mind of any potential publishers of your results.
|