What is the big deal with so-called technology zealots? No public online discussion can occur without accusations of zealotry, without posters labeling each other "trolls," "fanboys," or other terms. While perusing forums, blogs, and article comments can be informing, annoying, and entertaining, why has it become such an issue that there are zealots on the Web? Why are people so quick to make an issue of and condemn so-called zealous behavior? It is now very common for journalists, authors, and analysts to mention the impact of zealots in their writings and presentations.

Is a zealot really a zealot?

While sites try various moderation schemes and often allow users to view a poster's comment history, there is really no way of knowing who and why someone is posting. There are obviously many people who post because they are interested in a technology and have something to offer. Usually, their balanced and logical tone gives away their motivation. But for others, readers must decipher why they are contributing. For example, these "zealots" may comment because of:

• True hate. They may have been burned by a product that failed to live up to their expectations (e.g., non-replaceable batteries for iPods, dead pixels in a Dell notebook screen), or they may feel that a company behaves in a manner they feel is wrong (e.g., Microsoft).
  
  
• True love. Some folks are wedded to their technology product or vendor of choice, and any attack on a product or company executive is seen as a personal insult.
  
  
• Boredom. A poster could simply being stirring up the pot, taking a position only to see what kind of response he or she generates. Sometimes, when viewing comments on popular sites like Engadget or Slashdot, it's hard to believe that a particular poster is as rabid or one-sided as he or she appears.
  
  
• Money or prestige. It's difficult to know if a post praising or knocking a product is from a real user or actually from someone with a vested interest in the success or failure of that product. Seemingly independent posts and emails may actually be from a vendor's employee or its PR agency.
  
  

A case of reverse reverse psychology?

Astroturfing -- generating a fake grassroots campaign -- can be obvious or subtle, either aimed at raising up a company or tearing one down. If someone from Microsoft wants to bash Apple, why not write a pro-Apple post that comes off as arrogant? If someone wants to create animosity for Microsoft, why not offer up a post that minimizes or mischaracterizes issues that users care about to create a deluge of anti-Microsoft replies? If someone wants to knock Linux, why not post as an obsessive Linux fan with seemingly no business sense and an over-the-top political agenda? Of course, posts like these may also be from a zealot who doesn't realize his impact. But that's the point -- as a reader, you just don't know.

At New Rowley, while we have never and will never engage in astroturfing, we have been contacted by companies interested in hiring us to saturate message boards and Web sites in their area with the goal of improving their image and knocking down the competition. It is also not uncommon to hear accusations of vendors and PR agencies engaged in this activity. While these anecdotes can't determine the authenticity of specific posts, they do point to the fact that the motivations of online posters cannot be easily validated.

The value of online comments: Potential insight that needs to be corroborated

Readers are better off taking posts with a grain of salt, noting the occasional insight, ignoring the blatant inflammatory comment, and enjoying the often off-color, but humorous take from a diverse and global audience. This advice is the same for comments and analysis from more "mainstream" sources, such as journalists, industry and financial analysts, marketing executives and CEOs, and politicians of every stripe. "Trust, but verify," as the old arms control axiom says.

Traditional news sites, blogs, and forums have created a vast, virtual, interactive stew of news, rumors, insights, opinions, humor, and offensive rants. The good news is that the system is self-governing. For each unsubstantiated rumor, there is a group willing to debunk it. For issues that some choose to ignore, others will harp on them until they attract mainstream attention. The bad news is that this process is not always in real time. Erroneous information and misleading statements may have more effect than subsequent corrections do. It is, however, much better than the previous "old media" environment. For example, newspapers print retractions, but they are buried and seldom seen. On the Web, those same retractions and the related posts are only a Google search away.

Technology buyers should not ignore this vast and unwashed content. They should not fear the tech zealot. Like any research and analysis effort, it takes time and energy to sift through the data and validate comments. For many companies, however, a single post in a sea of accusations and misinformation may be worth the time spent finding it.