
Dogfooding considered solipsistic - _pius
http://softwareas.com/dogfooding-considered-solipsistic
======
rw
Atwood's blog isn't peer-reviewed and he's been slammed (rightly) many times
on HN. Jeff seems like a nice guy, and some of what he says is useful. But
_please_ stop citing him so much in your posts. It's a credibility sink.

~~~
spolsky
What's "peer review"? An academic article in a journal that's "peer reviewed"
has been reviewed by what, 2 peers? Ok, 6? Jeff's posts are "peer reviewed" by
hundreds or thousands of developers and you can read the reviews right there
at the bottom of each post.

~~~
scott_s
Unless those reading the article have the power of rejection, it's not the
same concept.

Peer review is more than just providing actual reviews. It's also having the
ability to tell someone "sorry, try again." Hence, getting a peer reviewed
paper published actually means something: your peers, who are also experts in
your field, decided what you wrote is good enough to publish.

------
timcederman
My version of how to gain meaningful feedback in a similar way to dogfooding
is participatory bootstrapping. Essentially it's in-situ prototyping (i.e.
with the end-user, whether they're an office worker, a dentist, a shop
attendant, etc), using participatory design techniques.

