I sent Vicky an email at the time of publishing rather than sharing a draft in advance. I didn’t pre-share for two reasons: I don’t have an existing relationship with anyone at AIM, so cold-emailing a stranger and asking them to review a draft on a deadline felt like a heavier ask than a heads-up at publication, and I tried to write the post so that any factual claim can be verified in a few minutes from the public spreadsheets (the cell references in each finding are there for that purpose). Vasco Grilo’s recent methodology posts on AIM CEAs are part of the same public conversation, and Vicky has engaged with those publicly on the Forum, which is part of why the published-with-heads-up route felt appropriate for a contribution in the same vein.
That said, I’m new to posting on the Forum and I’d take your read on the convention seriously. If the norm here is that pre-sharing should happen even when the analysis is grounded in public data, I’d want to know for next time.
The way you’ve gone about it seems reasonable enough to me (i.e. I don’t think you need to do anything to correct it now).
I still think it is ideal to run a critique like this past an organisation first—primarily because of the chance of misunderstandings. I’m being agnostic here about whether a misunderstanding would be your fault or the fault of AIM for using ambiguous terms/ entering the wrong number etc… The thing we’d be trying to avoid is spreading a critique of an organisation that is based on a hard to dispel/correct misunderstanding (many more people would see a critique than a correction).
I explain in the post that the mod team can help you get some feedback from the org first if you’d rather not do it yourself/ don’t feel you have a warm enough lead. Just dm me on the Forum if you’d like that help in the future.
PS- given “I’m new to posting on the Forum and I’d take your read on the convention seriously” I’d also add that I think you’d get more readers if you shared the whole post here. When I first saw this I thought this was the whole post (link-post and cross-post are pretty easy to conflate on the Forum). If you instead want people to spend time on your blog website, I’d just make sure to put a “continue reading” link at the end. Though, you’ll get more comments if you put the full post on the Forum.
I sent Vicky an email at the time of publishing rather than sharing a draft in advance. I didn’t pre-share for two reasons: I don’t have an existing relationship with anyone at AIM, so cold-emailing a stranger and asking them to review a draft on a deadline felt like a heavier ask than a heads-up at publication, and I tried to write the post so that any factual claim can be verified in a few minutes from the public spreadsheets (the cell references in each finding are there for that purpose). Vasco Grilo’s recent methodology posts on AIM CEAs are part of the same public conversation, and Vicky has engaged with those publicly on the Forum, which is part of why the published-with-heads-up route felt appropriate for a contribution in the same vein.
That said, I’m new to posting on the Forum and I’d take your read on the convention seriously. If the norm here is that pre-sharing should happen even when the analysis is grounded in public data, I’d want to know for next time.
Cheers!
The way you’ve gone about it seems reasonable enough to me (i.e. I don’t think you need to do anything to correct it now).
I still think it is ideal to run a critique like this past an organisation first—primarily because of the chance of misunderstandings. I’m being agnostic here about whether a misunderstanding would be your fault or the fault of AIM for using ambiguous terms/ entering the wrong number etc… The thing we’d be trying to avoid is spreading a critique of an organisation that is based on a hard to dispel/correct misunderstanding (many more people would see a critique than a correction).
I explain in the post that the mod team can help you get some feedback from the org first if you’d rather not do it yourself/ don’t feel you have a warm enough lead. Just dm me on the Forum if you’d like that help in the future.
PS- given “I’m new to posting on the Forum and I’d take your read on the convention seriously” I’d also add that I think you’d get more readers if you shared the whole post here. When I first saw this I thought this was the whole post (link-post and cross-post are pretty easy to conflate on the Forum). If you instead want people to spend time on your blog website, I’d just make sure to put a “continue reading” link at the end. Though, you’ll get more comments if you put the full post on the Forum.