sean redmond wrote:
As far as I see it, there are two points here: how much of an expert on the topic in question the presenter is and to what extent is the presenter spewing propaganda.
In short, experts know their stuff, they talk honestly, openly and leave nothing out. They have no problem telling the negatives as well as the positives. Marketing departments, on the other hand, generate propaganda.
If I go to a Microsoft event, I expect propaganda. With propaganda you will only get the positive spin and you need to go with a cynical mindset and try to find out what has been omitted or deceptively worded.
I far prefer the blogs of MVPs to anything I hear from a Microsoft person. Anna Hoffmann may know her Azure inside out but she doesn't get the respect from me that an MVP does, because what she produces is governed by Microsoft's marketing department.
There are "mvps" and then there are MVPs. People forget that the MVP award is, just that, an award. It is NOT a certificate of knowledge, skill, or ability. It's a "service award" and many folks continue to get the award just based on the sheer number of posts they've made even if they're dead wrong in what they're writing.
The really big problem is based on something my Dad told me about books when I was a kid in the '50s...
"Half of all this is written is untrue and the other half is usually written in a manner that you can't tell".
I've seen many a "Holy Grail" article where it's a very well written article, includes code to generate test data, forms a hypothesis, logic discovery steps, and a conclusion, all using what appears to be a very scientific method... and still be completely incorrect. A good example of such a thing can be found in a lot of the string splitter articles that supposedly prove that an XML splitter is faster than things like DelimitedSplit8k.
The problem is that no one realizes that the test data in such "Holy Grail" articles is usually flawed. The reader just doesn't understand nor even recognize that frequent fault. The really bad part is that some those articles are written by long time "trusted" people are written by... MVPs. 🙁 And, unfortunately, the MS documentation is sometimes seriously flawed either directly or, worse, by omission of facts-from-the-field.
Don't get me wrong... there are many MVPs that are so smart about their area of award that they must have two brains. Others still haven't moved off the peak of Mt. Stupid.
My point is, it's not always easy to figure it out even from article to article and someone touting the label of "MVP" or other credential might not actually be correct in what they're saying.