For a long time InsideEVs was my favorite web site. Now I am disappointed. electrek is now my number one go to and Teslarati second, so InsideEVs is now third. I actually like the articles at Teslarati best, very well written and since my interests include SpaceX it is well suited for me. However unlike electrek and InsideEVs, Teslarati has almost no user feedback. They made it very awkward and most articles have none and never more than 4 comments. I really like to be able to contribute and read other comments.
So this is to explain why I am disappointed in InsideEVs. Your site has degenerated into many low quality articles instead of fewer well researched and informative. I know if I use the term cli-- -ait a post will be automatically deleted, but that is what it has become. You post rumours as fact, short articles with no substance but maybe a question to generate feedback, and pure fiction. "Model 3 reportedly achieves 8k/wk production" - ascribed to Bloomberg who did no such thing. Bloomberg even has a disclaimer which you choose to ignore. "Tesla Model 3 stops to avoid accident" - possibly, but no fact checking, no statement from the driver, based on an outside observer who had no way of knowing if the driver stepped on the brake or not. Your journalistic integrity has sunk to new lows and you have chosen quantity over quality.
Roy,
Thanks for sharing your feelings.
We are trying to offer a diverse range of articles on the news site. We still have some longer, more analytical-type posts and we hope to have more of that in the future. (We're hoping to recruit more contributors, because now we're stretched pretty thin.) Yes, we do have a good amount of short posts as well. Sometimes there's not a lot of text in a post, but for some things, not much text is needed -- we would just like to share, for instance, the latest pic of a popular upcoming vehicle. While some readers may not be interested in these, lots are, and that helps us keep the lights on. Our readership has grown tremendously over the past year or so.
We do not, I believe, post rumors as fact. If something is a rumor, it's stated. In the first example you cite, the Bloomberg tracker
did show an 8,000-unit week and the piece added context to explain those numbers and what they might mean for quarterly production numbers. That's not a rumor. If I had of written it, I might have added more about Bloomberg's methods to explain this number was a result of added VINs, but the tracker does trim some of those extra VINs away in an attempt to reflect reality better, so it's hard to say what the exact number would have been for that week.
In the case of the avoided crash post, we think it's quite clear automatic emergency braking stopped the car. The offending car comes into the intersection quite late and from behind the field of view of the Tesla driver. If the Tesla driver had of seen them coming, they would not have begun to proceed into the intersection. The fact that the offending car is approaching from behind -- the streets of the intersection are not perpendicular -- adds to the certainty that the Tesla driver didn't see it coming. And, the fact that the car on the other side of the intersection, which had a much better view of the road where the offending car came from and still got tagged, speaks volumes. Sure, it would have been great to know who the driver was -- the original clip was actually out there for 3 months before it came to our attention -- but there was no direct way to track down the owner. In any case, everyone on our staff who watched the clip agreed it was an AEB activation that saved that person's bacon. We're actually quite surprised anyone is contesting that view.
Anyway, I hope you'll stick with us. I've shared your comment with the editorial staff, so they know how you feel. We recognize that you've been with us for some time now, and we do, actually, value your readership and participation in discussion on the site (and here!).
