- Feb 3, 2019
- 3,128
- 5,613
- 250
I had an interesting conversation (debate?) Over the accuracy of BGWfans reporting.
The argument essentially was that @Zachary's project 2021 article wasn't likely to be right because BGWfans is just an "enthusiast/rumor site". When I brought up his track record, I got this little gem:
Beyond being aggressive/antagonistic; especially at the end (which I ignored): we all know that the information posted as articles here are accurate as of the verifiable evidence that is available.
I just find it interesting how general public can perceive articles like this. Especially once the projects covered by the articles come to fruition. Anyone who has carefully read any of these articles knows that Zachary is extremely careful in pointing out things that are factual vs things that are guesses. Some of the examples given are flat out wrong; others are simply down to the article being the best information that was available out the time (i.e. we didn't know until the 2021 height waiver jcc meeting that Madrid was cancelled and thus the "Madrid" height waiver wouldn't be fully utilized).
Obviously, I don't expect the general public to memorize every word of every article; but it makes me sad to see people call the reporting here any less than excellent simply because they haven't taken the time to put historic articles into context of the information available at the time.
The argument essentially was that @Zachary's project 2021 article wasn't likely to be right because BGWfans is just an "enthusiast/rumor site". When I brought up his track record, I got this little gem:
Actually BGW Fans wasn't "dead on". They originally predicted the height being a lot taller (over 200 feet tall), they didnt get that right.... They also said it would be part of a new country "spain", thats not right.... They also said it would drop over the water, its not doing that either.... so while they got some aspects correct, they were not 100% accurate.
You dont have to blindly follow them just because they were right about Tempesto.
Beyond being aggressive/antagonistic; especially at the end (which I ignored): we all know that the information posted as articles here are accurate as of the verifiable evidence that is available.
I just find it interesting how general public can perceive articles like this. Especially once the projects covered by the articles come to fruition. Anyone who has carefully read any of these articles knows that Zachary is extremely careful in pointing out things that are factual vs things that are guesses. Some of the examples given are flat out wrong; others are simply down to the article being the best information that was available out the time (i.e. we didn't know until the 2021 height waiver jcc meeting that Madrid was cancelled and thus the "Madrid" height waiver wouldn't be fully utilized).
Obviously, I don't expect the general public to memorize every word of every article; but it makes me sad to see people call the reporting here any less than excellent simply because they haven't taken the time to put historic articles into context of the information available at the time.