Another nail in the coffin for quality info/data/review/summary .. on the internet.

Using the current trajectory of the volume of dross easily found on the interwebs .. I'd say that in a matter of months .. maybe a year or so .. just about every written piece on the internet is more likely to be rubbish than useful.

A few days back I found an article proclaiming that DSLRs are on life support or something like that.
Always interested to hear an another opinion I opened said article to have a read.

Lots of words, the same ol same ol commentary .. could have been written by the same person thousands of times ago .. basically no new insight or ideas in the article(up to the point that I stopped reading)

Then I got to this:

With this technology, we’re afforded more advanced face/eye detection capability and a cavalcade of exposure tools, like Zebra and Focus Peaking. My favorite feature, however, is the totally customizable layout on the bodies themselves. If I want to adjust the aperture with my thumb and the shutter with my index finger, it’s only a custom menu setting away. As a person who likes things just so, the mirrorless experience has been an intuitive one, and something that feels more empowering than the often passive experience that comes with cell phone tech upgrades.

It was important for me to come to understand that these tools are not the signs of automation as is usually the case with advancing technology, but are instead great strides toward helping the tools reach the proficiency of the artisans and craftsmen who have been handling them all along. Mirrorless is giving us more control, not less.
At this point I realised that the person banging out on the keypad(most likely a phone or tablet type device*) here .. really knows nothing of cameras!
I underlined the specific line in this persons article because in the article it says that this person owns a photographic shop of some sort in the US.
(sorry can't recall, neither the guys name, nor the name of the shop).
The point with the underlined section is that .. well .. WHAT 'THA!!!

The other two examples of more/better user control noted in the article was Zebras and Focus peaking(which DSLRs don't have) .. but why bring up the ability to control aperture and or shutter with the thumb or index finger as an empowering control feature that DSLRs don't have!

And that's the way I read the article .. the guy is waffling on about how much more control the mirrorless camera gives him, using the example of the main and sub command dials ability to be switched.
Obviously the focus peaking and zebra functions do .. but DSLRs have had the ability to switch dial commands since ... almost forever .. prior to DSLR era anyhow .. ie. back into the SLR era.

And this guy apparently owns a photographic store!
Has he never used a DSLR before .. or was he just to dumbfounded to actually delve into it's actual features.

Anyhow .. I replied to highlight the point that the author doesn't know enough about cameras to have been allowed to post such a article, and my reply got deleted(moderated) .. seems some folks are totally immune to both scrutiny and reality.

Now, there's quite a lot of rubbish posted to the net by the petabytes .. can't help but think that all that storage and bandwidth gone to waste. But this is usually different in that the vast majority of this garbage is just the average unknown jane or joe .. looking for the 15mins of fame that Andy Warhol promised them!

But this article popped up in a semi respected website, where one would assume some degree of knowledge or insight on behalf of the author.
So when I read it(up to that point) .. I knew then that .. the quality of the internet(content) is most definitely on it's downward slope, and seems to be speeding up.
Not long now before it's going to be so hard to sift through the drivel to find actually useful info.

The problem is ... us!
Us as in myself, yourselves .. etc. Us the reader.
We don't comment enough to highlight the inaccuracies and misinformation we're bombarded with.
None of the other comments to the article highlighted my point. Some weren't flattering, mainly questioning why we needed another article explaining what has already been said thousands of times over and again.
So it seems the actual issue is that there is some etiquette that doesn't allow an author to face any scrutiny .. lest that scrutiny be deleted.

Anyhow .. rant over for the day .. curious if others read some tidbit of drivel somewhere, and either just move on, or 'do something about it'.