From: Mark Lasarko (mlasarko@co.ba.md.us)
Date: Thu Sep 28 2006 - 16:13:32 ART
I wrote that to/for the entire GS population.
Vendors, elders, newbies, lurkers, etc...
I see over_and_over that many complain
about things already addressed on the
vendor's site(s).
~Or~ a new instructor comes along and
inherits the task of cleansing what was
left behind in haste as another departed.
Either way it gets old quick.
Training materials have to be "rushed" at times.
Why? - Because the industry demands it!
We helped create this monster and therefore we are
in some part contributors to the problem at its core.
Look at the crap Cisco released - those lame old labs.
How horrible was that? Right from the source??
Talk about quality control :(
This is not exclusive to IT learning materials.
Automotive, pharmaceuticals, "spinach"...
Can you say "Vista?"
Not trying to rant, just keeping it real.
And yes, I expect intelligent peers to do the same.
We are only_human. Let's at least be adults.
While I agree everyone is entitled to their
opinion the fact is that vendors try their best
to keep us current and that in itself offers a
less_than_perfect environment. They try their
best to deliver what we want, when we want it.
They all update their materials constantly.
Think about how long it takes to do documentation.
(We all do an immaculate job on this, with all these hours in the day,
right?)
Then, when vendors are cast in a negative light
(which happens more than the positive IMO)
and try to offer a response they are too often
flamed by those too ignorant to know otherwise.
(Meaning they have not communicated with the vendor
as effectively as they should have or could have)
Like the automobile you mention.
Every one I have every had has been less
than perfect, and considering the assembly
line robots replacing carbon-based life forms
that put the pieces together I would say it is
just as likely that spell checkers and other
forms of *automation*, scripts, etc... combined
with inconsistencies in images and platforms
(As implemented by we who use them)
YES!, there will be errors.
(Not to mention multiple_solutions - "it depends")
You are no longer comparing apples to apples
by the time the products are refined and released new
announcements are posted, things change, vendors
attempt to adjust as best they can.
If you buy a car from a dealership you don't go
to the BBB and complain right off the bat, right?
You give them a chance, or three, recalls aside.
<insert_Lemon_law_here>
That said, I have used four of whom I believe to
be the "top five" and they have all had some errors,
but nothing that I would consider excessive in comparison
to the rest of what I see in the real world. And they ALL
have been responsive and made accommodations when needed.
Not to mention the twisted satisfaction I get when I see
something that is not right - it makes me feel like I am learning,
which motivates me to contribute, it's all good in the end.
If you get a product and can show proof it is less than
"acceptable", with "a lot | excessive" errors I do not know
any of the vendors I have experience with that would not
make it right or refund your $'s if you approached them
in a professional manner. Those who would not honor this
I would not call vendors, but rather criminals.
There is recourse for this as well.
(Granted you don't fall for a wire transfer for "Real CCIE Lab!")
I do value feedback, but sincere feedback is different
than opinion - and we know about opinions, they are
like... Everybody has one. I am just asking everyone to
do their homework and stick to the facts.
Then take the facts to a separate area on GS where
those who need to offer feedback, positive or
negative, can offer such AND the instructors and
vendors can reply without being slammed for
defending something they should not have to
in the first place, in many cases, while those (few)
who do release junk products or try to rip off
candidates otherwise can be properly documented
and not interrupt those of us who are trying to learn,
tracking hundreds of "useful" messages per day without the distraction.
This way, when inquiries are made those who need to
be enlightened can spend all the time they want reading
reviews and the smack that goes along with it.
As I said:
At the end of the day the labs, whatever the "quality",
are only as valuable as the candidate who is doing
the lab - you get from it what you put into it. If you can
spot error and/or alternate solutions than good for you!
(That's part of what it is all about)
If I was writing these labs I would intentionally build errors
into them. The way I see it if you cannot identify a few
errors then you are not ready. When you get that good, that
you can find ALL the errors, I am sure there is a vendor
around who would be happy to have you onboard!
Sorry for the long email, but I have a lot of respect for
ALL who contribute, and most of what I have seen has
been negative and for the most part unjustifiably so. The
positive has been "quiet" and I think it's time we shout out
some mad props to those who share with us day in, day out
often in the middle of the night so we can awake to become
a more knowledgeable being.
~M
>>> "Jens Petter" <jenseike@start.no> 09/28/06 1:56 PM >>>
Not sure who you are writing this to, but have to come with a coment
anyway...
From what i can see here on GS the vendors get both positive and negative
feedback... I think both are good. Bad feedback is good to keep the vendors
making good products, good feedback is also good so that they get some
positive boost for all that hard work they put down..
I think that errors are a product of a hasty launch dates. Vendors is
hasting to get their workbooks finish as fast as possible, then scarifying
the testing of the labs they have written. If the labs are well tested
after, then those errors would be spotted by the vendors.. I don't think
that a wb full of errors are any good for practice and learning. If that was
a good study method we would have had labs that had those errors put in from
those who wrote them on purpose.. no, do extensive testing and keep the
errors out, then we all can consentrate on what we should... solving the
labs and knowing that when we look at the solution we can be confident that
they are right and that we have the right solution our selfe...
The thing is that some workbooks have been sent out on the marked with not a
few errors, but a lot.. that is really not what people pay big money for and
then they have they full right to tell that to the vendors... That is just
bad buisniss in any busnniss to put out a product that are not finish.. Just
think of it if you by a car and suddenly your weels start coming of.. Of
course you would lash out at who ever sold you that.. workboks are a product
like any other product... they should be finish when they hit the marked...
Of course they put down a hell of a job... I put down a hell of a job on
every project I work in.. That does not mean that I can do a job that the
customer are not happy with.. I have to make sure that everything is
perfect.. That should the vendors also do, make sure the wbs are perfect...
Customers should not be the ones that should spot errors but you who make
it.. before you sell it...
Thanks...
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Mark
Lasarko
Sent: 28. september 2006 19:10
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: All CCIE Workbooks
..and prep materials have errors.
I should know as I have used many.
I also know that every vendor I have used
has made an effort to resolve the issues
on their forums, in *free* updates, etc...
They are all receptive and rely on those who
use the materials for feedback.
Do your homework before you claim the
teacher fudged up the dittos and don't
act as though like they don't listen!
These vendors do an excellent job IMO.
Anyone who is truly prepared for their lab
should be able to decipher a few "errors"
and get on with their studies.
It is all relative - nothing is perfect,
Especially on lab day.
There is always *something*
Please accept it and move on.
Give these vendors some credit and communicate
with them as opposed to bashing them on GS and
wasting our collective bandwidth.
If you disagree, maybe you should go write your own
labs and show the rest of us how *perfect* you are!
At the end of the day the labs, whatever the "quality",
are only as valuable as the candidate who is doing
the lab - you get from it what you put into it. If you can
spot error and/or alternate solutions than good for you!
(That's part of what it is all about)
Think about that before you bash the rest of the best.
~M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:41 ART