Favorites   •   Rants In Our Pants

eSarcasm vs. CNET and Wired: Get the Facts

If Microsoft can create its own “study” to prove its product is better than the competition — well, damn it, we can do the same thing.

By (@jr_raphael)

January 29, 2010

Microsoft knows what’s up. Having failed to attract users to Internet Explorer with its various forms of bribery, the company decided to create its own internal analysis showing how IE stacks up with the competition. Titled “Get the Facts,” the Microsoft analysis found IE to be ahead of both Firefox and Chrome in almost every area examined.

Remember this?

Microsoft’s pulled this kind of stunt before: When independent metrics firms found users were flocking to other search engines despite the company’s “Cashback” promotion, Microsoft commissioned some research to prove otherwise.

We here at eSarcasm see the brilliance in this line of thinking, so we’ve decided it’s time to set a few facts straight ourselves. Here’s how eSarcasm is dominating the dojo and leaving other geek-centric sites behind.

eSarcasm CNET Wired

Comments

Reliability Check We know every second counts when it comes to online news. While the other sites get bogged down with “fact-checking” and “reporting,” eSarcasm simply makes up most of the stuff we publish. That’s why we can bring you late-breaking developments far faster than any other source.
Size of Staff Check CNET and Wired may boast about their newsrooms full of reporters, but they’re not telling you the whole story. Sure, we at eSarcasm may be smaller in numbers — but our employees are all giants. Giants who care about you.
Ease of Use Check eSarcasm was designed by highly trained rocket scientists using advanced algorithms, crushed almonds, and plenty of lube. You simply won’t find a tastier, more easily insertable site anywhere on the World Wide Webs.
Privacy Check Other sites collect cookies containing your information, then use that data for things like advertising, market research, and probably terrorism. Here at eSarcasm, we keep the cookies in the kitchen. Lots of them, in fact. We’re hideously obese, yes — but we’re willing to accept that burden to make sure your privacy remains a priority.
Customization Check CNET and Wired are bogged down with so much information that there’s no way they can cater stories to the subjects that interest you. Granted, we don’t do that, either. But we could. And that’s what counts.
Use of Superlatives in Self-Promotion Check Think CNET and Wired are the best at using superlatives to describe themselves? Think again. eSarcasm uses the Most Self-Promoting Superlatives of Any Tech-Related Web Site on the Entire Internets.™ We are hands-down the best at exaggerating our qualities and qualifications (and on a related note, we’re also all incredibly good in bed).

We’ll even commission our own analyses and studies to prove our points, and our analysts and researchers are the smartest in the world. Why? Because we say so, that’s why.

Now, where are those damn cookies?






Get fresh geek humor delivered daily: RSS | E-Mail | Twitter

Comments

  • marinedoc

    By George, I think you've got. Who in their right mind wants to read all that “ridiculous” real news. Scares the hell out me. Plus, I really like your use of cookies. Keep up the great work.

  • Chris

    Haha, well personally i think your study is more valid then microsofts…. And i love how this site was made….kinda makes me want to give up html/css and try that…

  • googooboyy

    I'm disappointed that TG Daily or Boing Boing weren't included. Now how do we know if eSarcasm is better in exaggerations and lies than them? Guess we'll never know.

    Loving it.

  • Dee

    When I saw Size of Staff at first I thought you guys were going to reference something else… ;)

    • http://www.esarcasm.com JR Raphael

      Let's just say this: When we said we were “giants,” we weren't referring to height.

  • Dee

    When I saw Size of Staff at first I thought you guys were going to reference something else… ;)

  • http://www.esarcasm.com JR Raphael

    Let's just say this: When we said we were “giants,” we weren't referring to height.