pcray1231
Well-known member
shortrod,
The article tells the truth. Therefore, it's a good article. As in anything, the reader has to take the info and apply it to their own situation.
As far as which way the article switches people, regardless of how it's written, it's a pure numbers game.
1. There are far more people using WF than DT.
2. Beginners usually start with WF, and thus there are far more using WF due to false assumptions than those using DT due to false assumptions.
Thus, since there's nothing false in there, lets assume that a certain % of readers are switching one way or the other due to correcting misconceptions. If those %'s are even in the same ballpark, then far more people are switching from WF to DT, because there's so many more to switch.
I think it's almost certain that the article switched more people to DT. How many people bought the marketing that WF is better, then read the article and say "wow, I never fish beyond 40'"? The article tells the truth, and truth is the enemy of fancy marketing.
The article tells the truth. Therefore, it's a good article. As in anything, the reader has to take the info and apply it to their own situation.
As far as which way the article switches people, regardless of how it's written, it's a pure numbers game.
1. There are far more people using WF than DT.
2. Beginners usually start with WF, and thus there are far more using WF due to false assumptions than those using DT due to false assumptions.
Thus, since there's nothing false in there, lets assume that a certain % of readers are switching one way or the other due to correcting misconceptions. If those %'s are even in the same ballpark, then far more people are switching from WF to DT, because there's so many more to switch.
I think it's almost certain that the article switched more people to DT. How many people bought the marketing that WF is better, then read the article and say "wow, I never fish beyond 40'"? The article tells the truth, and truth is the enemy of fancy marketing.
