As a professional writer I can assure you that using lots of words is a hell of a lot easier than using only a few. "Lots of words" is largely a stream of consciousness thing. There's no editing for brevity, which takes rather a lot of bandwidth. I can cheerfully knock out a 5000 word paper on a given topic easier than I can write a 500 word summary blog. Human minds are funny.
As for "quoting my importance in general", where exactly did I do that? I don't particularly view myself as important. Indeed, a critical part of studying businesses the way I do is realizing the irrelevance of the individual, especially the pundits. So if you somehow took something above as indicating my 'importance', I'd love to know what it is.
Perhaps more to the point on all of this, I don't care about NetApp in the form of the company, the products or most of the individuals who work there. I only have couple handfuls of friends there, and they are decent enough at their jobs that if NetApp imploded tomorrow they'd be employed again by the end of the day.
What I do care about is NetApp in the form of the effect it has on the industry as a whole. NetApp is a large company with many customers and a history that once upon a time made it an important disruptor in the storage space. Who are they now? How did they get there? What will they become?
The evolution of companies and, more specifically, the reasons that companies evolve in that fashion is of immense interest to me. Again, very much like the Great Red Spot on Jupiter: it is something I find incredibly interesting from a purely scientific perspective.
My primary interest is not merely in the facts of a puzzle. Facts are a means to an end; a tool to explore the real curiosity: in all things I enjoy studying how and why people (and animals) delude themselves. Why to we reject objective truths? Why do we discount the lessons of history? Why do we cling to hope, to faith, to an employer and - above all else - why do we champion vendors from whom we have purchased goods, even when there is no reason to champion that vendor other than to justify our own purchases?
Why do we wrap our identities up in products, brands...even chosen interpretations of scientific evidence? Why does science proceed one funeral at a time? Why do cults of personality form and vendor reality distortion fields exist?
NetApp is a truly fascinating topic for someone who studies the above. Not because NetApp itself matters, but because of the socking depth of the dichotomy between objective reality, what history has to teach us and what the True Believers believe. Cisco and Apple are probably the only two other companies in Tech that have reality distortion fields anywhere near as strong. I find it utterly fascinating.
What's even more fascinating is how much is the result of fear. I love talking to NetApp employees in private conference, because when you've earned their trust and they are convinced you'll never tell a soul their name or what they said, the truth simply pours out.
The fear and terror of speaking out of turn that exists day after day until it simply fades into the background, a dull part of one's consciousness, but a very active and real constraint on not only speech, but thought itself. There is clear evidence from multiple individuals that the pressure to conform one's very thoughts to "the message" is so intense that it creates a demonstrable strain; physical tension builds up not unlike that seen in PTSD clients.
When the barriers are removed, however, and a "safe space" is provided...the sorted details that are made available! Pouring out the naughty bits is more than a little confessional. The individuals in question are visibly less stressed than before. When they're done, they put their psychological armour back on and ride once more into the breech.
None of this is shocking or abnormal. This is - to a greater or lesser degree - simply how Big Business is done in the grand of US of A. I am positive that not everyone feels as constrained as those who pour their souls into a handful of beers. Indeed, it's those who are most ethically or morally compromised by the constraints of their position are most likely to experience this stress, and probably should be looking for a more fulfilling career.
But why do they stay? Why do they parrot the party line? How, exactly, do they succeed in convincing themselves of the lie when, if given time to reflect, what they believe is obviously quite different from what they espouse for their job?
Personally, I can't understand how the above sorts of things don't absolutely fascinate everyone. There are simply so many data points to collect, and there's so much analysis to do! NetApp is a company with so many different groups - both internally and externally - intersecting with so many different agendas...it's just brain candy to puzzle types like myself.
Maybe you'd care to contribute data of your own? Starting with why you choose faith in "the message" and in business/economic choices that have proven time and again to be unlikely to succeed? Or is it that you have faith in individuals? Perhaps that new individuals doing the exact same thing as the previous individuals will somehow net a different outcome? I'm sure your input would be fascinating.
As to the other anonymous coward who felt that posting my upvote/downvote data was somehow "bragging": I'd love to know why you feel that way. I posted raw data. I am unsure why raw data is "bragging".
What about it seems worthy of bragging to you? Previous commenters have indicated that they feel the upvote to downvote ratio is wholly inadequate. You seem to indicate that you feel differently. What is the numeric threshold for your belief that those numbers constitute "bragging"? Is it the volume of votes (which should only be indicative of number of posts over the years) or the ratio? If the ratio, what ratio of upvotes to downvotes do you consider brag-worthy?
I think we've stumbled upon another fascinating topic!