Understood. But while making his point, Kay seemed to be enormously concerned about the dainty sensibilities of anyone he might be publicly criticizing, or of anyone else who’d unduly praised their incomplete work.

I had little idea which book and app he was describing, which means for me the entire post might as well have been gossip overheard at a hair salon. Value: questionable.

Sir, I think your post began with good intentions and calls attention to a phenomenon that has become all too common in the tiny ecosystem of tech blogs, and which needs to be discussed more often and more plainly. But the fact that you went on to describe two examples of what I’d describe as false advertising naturally led me to hope I’d be provided with concrete information about the products so advertised.

I believe your attempt to avoid accusations of having made “personal attacks” on the authors in question anticipates the reaction of shallow individuals who choose not to take legitimate criticism in its intended spirit, and prefer to wage partisan dogmatic argument instead of participating in a healthy exchange of intellectual opinions. Those arguments often get ugly and spread a lot of bad blood in the process, which I acknowledge is unpleasant.

But your post is about credibility in tech blogs, which one hopes would be fueled by facts but occasionally trade in Google juice and the mutual support of an insular clique.

Not knowing you personally, I was hoping to see more facts I could base an opinion upon. I know you had no intention to “call out” anyone, but after describing your dissatisfaction as a consumer who was led to believe two products were of higher quality than they turned out to be, I was hoping for more follow-through.

When I hear criticism of anyone’s credibility, I expect to see evidence backing up the accusation. Your reluctance to “point fingers” suggests to me that you might be too close to the problem to address it publicly.