Time to gut the network - thoughts?
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.
I'd be very interested to hear why you feel there is room to not scrutinize in that obviously "red flagged" case?
How do you not imply the inverse if what you're saying here is true.
i.e. if you haven't seen an ad for it, then it must be OK, and you have no reason/need to question or be leary of it.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Personally I agree that anything I see on TV I personally am very Leary of, what's the angle, how are you trying to screw me, what else can I buy to get something for less cost? But normals don't think this way.
Exactly. Marketing's purpose is to convince you to buy something. You should be naturally wary, just a little, of any of that. That doesn't make the company evil, it is just the job of marketing. And it is the job of the consumer to be wary.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
But you're not saying that - instead you started by saying that we should all know that if we get a recommendation for any product that we've ever seen an ad for, we have to instantly be suspicious of that recommendation. I think you're taking the wrong approach here.
I'd be very interested to hear why you feel there is room to not scrutinize in that obviously "red flagged" case?
How do you not imply the inverse if what you're saying here is true.
Simply by not implying it. That's a standard logic rule. One true does not imply the inverse. That's basic logical progression.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?
Yes, because you change from a grey area into a black and white one. You make them legally and morally obligated, you remove any social contract of sales, marketing or other. Nothing allows them to lie, ethically or legally. It also removes you having missed or them not disclosing a financial connection. You say that it won't help because if they are not up front... but you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different than flat out lying. Absolutely different.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it a really, really big deal, yes.
I'm giving advice on how to improve things. There is no answer on how to be perfect. But we don't skip doing a good job just because we can't do a perfect one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
If you're looking for advice on a product, and the person you're paying to give you advice suggests something you've heard of before, you should scrutinize that person to ensure they are making that recommendation for the right reasons. WOW - that seems very anti advertising if absolutely nothing else. This almost seems vendetta like.
That's an odd reaction to feel. Money is spent to influence you, someone leverages that influence, you don't feel that you should scrutinize if you are being taken advantage of?
That you both react to this like this makes me feel like I've said something wrong. This is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it. I must be missing something.
It's not. This whole thread is you expecting people to listen to you. You just said "this is so obvious to me I'm unclear why you question it."
It is, I'm literally unclear why it is being questioned? I'm uncertain of what the counterargument is.
Well one counterargument is that you're assuming you recall every add for every IT thing you've ever seen. Only by having this perfect recall can you be sure that you question the right products.
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
I know I can get behind this logic - the normals still won't do it... because as humans we are trusting by nature, and this question while being good business practice flies in the face of nature trust.
-
Remember, for example, if your salesman lies to you flat out... you don't owe them money for the work. It's worse than bad fail, it is intent to defraud. You would be under no obligation to pay them and could sue the poo out of them if you found out later.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Well one counterargument is that you're assuming you recall every add for every IT thing you've ever seen.
Nope, I'm really not. If you don't see enough ads to have any emotional reaction then the effect isn't large enough for most consultants to leverage it. It's not perfect, but perfect is never relevant.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
Only by having this perfect recall can you be sure that you question the right products.
The idea that you can never make mistakes is not correct. It's about improving the process, not about avoiding any mistake ever.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
i really think you should drop the "if it's in an ad, you should question it" and change it to - "OK Mr/Mrs consultant, thanks for this recommendation, now tell me why and who it beat out"
That's great and fine and if you have a good process for questioning every recommendation, great. But even then, you should be aware of which cases are more risky and which are less.
We know to be wary if SAN is mentioned. Does that make SAN bad? Not in the least. But we know that the chances that we are being sold something we don't need just went up one hundred fold.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
It does. If the company uses marketing, you should be wary. So if they don't market, you don't need to be wary.
Yes exactly, you should be wary. Wary of advise is totally different than a company being bad. UNrelated. 100%
And I NEVER suggested that you stop being wary when they don't advertise.
Sure you never said it... but normals will hear an implied inverse, wither you mean it to be there or not. If you don't want them to have that inverse thinking, you need to explicitly say that.
See what I mean? I have no idea where these statements come from. Am I saying something wrong? I can't find anything I've said that would even remotely suggest these thoughts.
You're stopping short - again, don't just say - 'question any quote for an advertised thing' - instead say, 'question all quotes'
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
I know I can get behind this logic - the normals still won't do it... because as humans we are trusting by nature, and this question while being good business practice flies in the face of nature trust.
But NOT true advice is for "normals." It never is. "Normals" don't care. Good business practices are never for normal people, but they are for anyone who cares.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
It does. If the company uses marketing, you should be wary. So if they don't market, you don't need to be wary.
Yes exactly, you should be wary. Wary of advise is totally different than a company being bad. UNrelated. 100%
And I NEVER suggested that you stop being wary when they don't advertise.
Sure you never said it... but normals will hear an implied inverse, wither you mean it to be there or not. If you don't want them to have that inverse thinking, you need to explicitly say that.
Oh sure, but that is something that they make up themselves and didn't get from me. That's not my concern. If they don't want to screw themselves for their own purposes, they should read what is written instead of making things up. Intentionally altering my advice to something rather different is in no way my concern.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?
Yes, because you change from a grey area into a black and white one. You make them legally and morally obligated, you remove any social contract of sales, marketing or other. Nothing allows them to lie, ethically or legally. It also removes you having missed or them not disclosing a financial connection. You say that it won't help because if they are not up front... but you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different than flat out lying. Absolutely different.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it a really, really big deal, yes.
I'm giving advice on how to improve things. There is no answer on how to be perfect. But we don't skip doing a good job just because we can't do a perfect one.
So the "consultant" says, "Oh we love Cisco. We use it for everything. No ties to them, we just love the product and does more than what we need, and it's easy to get help for it."
So now you either have to get a "second opinion" or try to do research on your own, which will most likely lead to the same results.
-
@Dashrender said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're stopping short - again, don't just say - 'question any quote for an advertised thing' - instead say, 'question all quotes'
No, question quotes for an advertised thing more. It's about recognizing the danger case and raising alert.
If you raise the base alert from green to orange, orange becomes "no alert". It's just how humans work.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
So the "consultant" says, "Oh we love Cisco. We use it for everything. No ties to them, we just love the product and does more than what we need, and it's easy to get help for it."
So now you either have to get a "second opinion" or try to do research on your own, which will most likely lead to the same results.
And what's wrong with that? If you have a vendor passionate about Cisco and Cisco will meet the needs, maybe it's the right choice for you. You questioned, you got a decent answer. Move on.
-
This isn't about Cisco, remember even I think that Cisco is great a lot of the time. That it is a red flag in no way implies that it is not sometimes (or even often) the right choice. Only that it is the wrong choice often enough and in that pattern to that we should pay more attention and question what made it come up.
-
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
@stacksofplates said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
You're expecting people to take your advice without being questioned. The advice you are giving is to question people who give you advice.
Sure, but question it, don't twist it. I gave advice that only requires logic to know why it makes sense. It's clear that there can be no financial motivation behind it as I lose money or come out even on it as a consultant. And I don't advertise the advice. I'm not saying not to question it, but it's not being questioned, is it? Just twisted?
What part of what I said do you question? That advertising can make people emotionally susceptible to suggestion? That advisor will leverage that for personal gain? That we should be aware of these facts and prepare ourselves to look for this common scenario?
Which part are you questioning specifically?
Again, you've changed the argument so many times that we're somewhere different from where we were originally.
The original comment was "The people who are hiring the consultants don't know what they need...HOw do you question someone on recommending one brand if you don't know anything about it."
You still haven't answered that. You've just said "question them"
How?
What do you mean? Ask questions. Ask why the recommended it when it's popular. Ask what else they considered and why the big brand name won out. Ask if there is any financial connection to the company. Ask if there are skills tied to the brand name and not to other products. Ask if there is any reselling going on or kickbacks.
Question.
So you expect them to not be upfront and try to trick you from using marketing, but then expect them to tell the truth when you ask those questions? Those questions aren't going to help at all. If the person isn't up front from the beginning, they won't be up front when answering those questions. So, now where do you turn?
Yes, because you change from a grey area into a black and white one. You make them legally and morally obligated, you remove any social contract of sales, marketing or other. Nothing allows them to lie, ethically or legally. It also removes you having missed or them not disclosing a financial connection. You say that it won't help because if they are not up front... but you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different than flat out lying. Absolutely different.
Is it perfect? Heck no. Is it a really, really big deal, yes.
I'm giving advice on how to improve things. There is no answer on how to be perfect. But we don't skip doing a good job just because we can't do a perfect one.
So the "consultant" says, "Oh we love Cisco. We use it for everything. No ties to them, we just love the product and does more than what we need, and it's easy to get help for it."
So now you either have to get a "second opinion" or try to do research on your own, which will most likely lead to the same results.
The obvious thing, if you really wanted to push the point, is to ask for a non-Cisco consultant or VAR to give you an alternative and ask why the Cisco solution is bad. Then compare notes. Maybe question the original vendor again. But I'm not suggesting that anyone need go that far, if the logic behind why Cisco was selected is reasonable, that is easily enough.
This isn't about finding every bad case or bad advice or bad motivation, it's about improving the process so that we find it more often than if we didn't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Time to gut the network - thoughts?:
t you've totally changed the scenario. Not being "up front" is not disclosing voluntarily a connection. That's totally different tha
the problem I have with this whole line is that you're paying someone because you trust their advice.. but at the same time, you're saying that you can't trust their advice, or at bare minimum you're saying trust but verify - and we all know where that leads.
